[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <dd4511e9-3730-913b-9a80-59476661f3c8@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 08:44:09 -0400
From: Waiman Long <longman@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
xen-devel@...ts.xenproject.org, x86@...nel.org,
virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org, jeremy@...p.org,
chrisw@...s-sol.org, akataria@...are.com, rusty@...tcorp.com.au,
boris.ostrovsky@...cle.com, hpa@...or.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
mingo@...hat.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] paravirt: add virt_spin_lock pvops function
On 09/06/2017 03:08 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> Guys, please trim email.
>
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2017 at 10:31:46AM -0400, Waiman Long wrote:
>> For clarification, I was actually asking if you consider just adding one
>> more jump label to skip it for Xen/KVM instead of making
>> virt_spin_lock() a pv-op.
> I don't understand. What performance are you worried about. Native will
> now do: "xor rax,rax; jnz some_cold_label" that's fairly trival code.
It is not native that I am talking about. I am worry about VM with
non-Xen/KVM hypervisor where virt_spin_lock() will actually be called.
Now that function will become a callee-saved function call instead of
being inlined into the native slowpath function.
Cheers,
Longman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists