On 03/01/14 01:36, Mukesh Rathor wrote: > On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 11:24:50 +0000 > David Vrabel <david.vra...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> On 01/01/14 04:35, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote: >>> From: Mukesh Rathor <mukesh.rat...@oracle.com> >>> >>> .. which are surprinsingly small compared to the amount for PV code. >>> >>> PVH uses mostly native mmu ops, we leave the generic (native_*) for >>> the majority and just overwrite the baremetal with the ones we need. >>> >>> We also optimize one - the TLB flush. The native operation would >>> needlessly IPI offline VCPUs causing extra wakeups. Using the >>> Xen one avoids that and lets the hypervisor determine which >>> VCPU needs the TLB flush. >> >> This TLB flush optimization should be a separate patch. > > It's not really an "optimization", we are using PV mechanism instead > of native because PV one performs better.
Um. Isn't that the very definition of an optimization? I do think it is better for the essential MMU changes to be clearly separate from the optional ones. David -- 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/
