Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Monday, October 1, 2007 - 11:29 pm

Rusty Russell wrote:

I'm thinking that the overhead will be unmeasurably small, and its not
really worth any more complexity.  That's almost certainly true for lazy
mmu mode, but lazy cpu is used in the middle of a context switch, so
it's probably worth a bit more attention.


Er, they should probably call something to make the switch actually
happen, no?


Sure, I guess.  Would it make any difference?  (I've never personally
noticed likely/unlikely change the generated code in any seriously
positive way.)

    J
-
Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

Messages in current thread:
[PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Mon Oct 1, 4:46 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Rusty Russell, (Mon Oct 1, 6:34 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Avi Kivity, (Mon Oct 1, 10:48 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Mon Oct 1, 11:24 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Mon Oct 1, 11:29 pm)
Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Rusty Russell, (Tue Oct 2, 12:53 am)
Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt: cleanup lazy mode handling, Jeremy Fitzhardinge, (Tue Oct 2, 3:43 pm)