Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
> Takuya Yoshikawa <yoshikawa.tak...@oss.ntt.co.jp> wrote:
>
> > + while (mask) {
> > + rmapp = &slot->rmap[gfn_offset + __ffs(mask)];
> > + __rmap_write_protect(kvm, rmapp, PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
> >
> > - return write_protected;
> > + /* clear the first set bit */
> > + mask &= mask - 1;
> > + }
> > }
>
> while (mask) {
> fsbit = __ffs(mask);
> gfn_offset += fsbit;
> mask >>= fsbit + 1;
>
> rmapp = &slot->rmap[gfn_offset];
> __rmap_write_protect(kvm, rmapp, PT_PAGE_TABLE_LEVEL);
> }
>
> Seems to be better: BSF friendly.
I was wrong.
"and < shift" and bsf did not show any difference for this kind of loop
on my box. So we should keep the original implementation.
Takuya
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
