[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrVwn_bqeuuv7UbZzr8T2M+krjaDNgrqWd3vX0gujPm5sA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:57:59 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...e.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Minfei Huang <mnghuan@...il.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Cleanup __pvclock_read_cycles to remove useless variables
On Apr 30, 2016 12:17 PM, "Borislav Petkov" <bp@...e.de> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 30, 2016 at 10:47:49AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Take a look at vread_pvclock. I decided that __pvclock_read_cycles
> > was too ugly to use and was very slow and I just gave up and rewrote
> > it.
>
> Should we kill __pvclock_read_cycles in favor of vread_pvclock? It looks
> doable at a quick scan...
>
The in-kernel version might have to be a bit different because it
needs to handle the !stable case. If !stable, it should just use the
current CPU's copy which means that, realistically, it should just
get_cpu and use the local copy unconditionally. Other than that, it
could look a lot like the vread_pvclock variant.
But I agree, the current thing is incomprehensible.
--Andy
> --
> Regards/Gruss,
> Boris.
>
> SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> --
Powered by blists - more mailing lists