On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:07:58PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:07:15PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:46:31AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > > On 01/25/2013 08:15 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:07:20PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > > >> It makes set_spte more clean and reduces branch prediction
> > > >>
> > > >> Signed-off-by: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > >> ---
> > > >> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 37 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > >> 1 files changed, 26 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > > >
> > > > Don't see set_spte as being a performance problem?
> > > > IMO the current code is quite simple.
> > >
> > > Yes, this is not a performance problem.
> > >
> > > I just dislike this many continuous "if"-s in the function:
> > >
> > > if (xxx)
> > > xxx
> > > if (xxx)
> > > xxx
> > > ....
> > >
> > > Totally, it has 7 "if"-s before this patch.
> > >
> > > Okay, if you think this is unnecessary, i will drop this patch. :)
> >
> > Yes, please (unless you can show set_spte is a performance problem).
>
> Same thing for spte fast drop: is it a performance problem?
>
I like spte fast drop because it gets rid of "goto restart" pattern.
for_each_spte_in_rmap_safe() can be the alternative.
> Please try to group changes into smaller, less controversial sets with
> a clear goal:
>
> - Debated performance improvement.
> - Cleanups (eg mmu_set_spte argument removal).
> - Bug fixes.
> - Performance improvements.
>
> Thanks.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
