[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <eab3a2dd-3ade-57f2-ec2b-1ebd744df0fa@arm.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Apr 2017 09:27:00 +0100
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>
To: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kvm@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@...ibm.com>,
James Hogan <james.hogan@...tec.com>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...abs.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC 5/6] KVM: mark requests that do not need a wakeup
On 06/04/17 21:20, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> Some operations must ensure that the guest is not running with stale
> data, but if the guest is halted, then the update can wait until another
> event happens. kvm_make_all_requests() currently doesn't wake up, so we
> can mark all requests used with it.
>
> First 8 bits were arbitrarily reserved for request numbers.
>
> Most uses of requests have the request type as a constant, so a compiler
> will optimize the '&'.
>
> An alternative would be to have an inline function that would return
> whether the request needs a wake-up or not, but I like this one better
> even though it might produce worse assembly.
>
> Suggested-by: Christoffer Dall <cdall@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
> ---
> Btw. do you recall which macro allowed to define bitmasks? (It has
> two arguments, FROM and TO.)
GENMASK (and its _ULL variant), defined in include/linux/bitops.h.
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
Powered by blists - more mailing lists