[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4EA54694.5070703@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2011 13:05:56 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: "Alex,Shi" <alex.shi@...el.com>
CC: Christoph Lameter <cl@...two.org>, "tj@...nel.org" <tj@...nel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"eric.dumazet@...il.com" <eric.dumazet@...il.com>,
"Huang, Ying" <ying.huang@...el.com>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"akpm@...ux-foundation.org" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"davem@...emloft.net" <davem@...emloft.net>,
"kaber@...sh.net" <kaber@...sh.net>,
"a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl" <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"jeremy@...source.com" <jeremy@...source.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kvm: use this_cpu_xxx replace percpu_xxx funcs
On 10/24/2011 04:50 AM, Alex,Shi wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-10-20 at 15:34 +0800, Alex,Shi wrote:
> > percpu_xxx funcs are duplicated with this_cpu_xxx funcs, so replace them
> > for further code clean up.
> >
> > And in preempt safe scenario, __this_cpu_xxx funcs has a bit better
> > performance since __this_cpu_xxx has no redundant preempt_disable()
> >
>
> Avi:
> Would you like to give some comments of this?
>
Sorry, was travelling:
Acked-by: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists