On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 07:12:31PM +0900, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking of additional work already, this
alone can reduce the lock hold time to some extent.
Takuya Yoshikawa (8):
KVM: MMU:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:44:52PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:12 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking of additional work already, this
alone can reduce the lock hold time to
On 02/04/2013 09:42 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 06:44:52PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:12 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking of additional work already,
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking of additional work already, this
alone can reduce the lock hold time to some extent.
Takuya Yoshikawa (8):
KVM: MMU: Fix and clean up for_each_gfn_* macros
KVM: MMU: Use
On 01/23/2013 06:12 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking of additional work already, this
alone can reduce the lock hold time to some extent.
It is not worth doing this kind of complex thing,
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:44:52 +0800
Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:12 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking of additional work already, this
alone can
On 01/23/2013 09:28 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 18:44:52 +0800
Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
On 01/23/2013 06:12 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This patch set mitigates another mmu_lock hold time issue. Although
this is not enough and I'm thinking
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:45:23 +0800
Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
The current code which deletes the two link nodes in different functions
looks unnatural to me: traversing the sp-link nodes forces us to break
the loop and sp-hash_link nodes alone is allowed to
On 01/23/2013 10:49 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:45:23 +0800
Xiao Guangrong xiaoguangr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
The current code which deletes the two link nodes in different functions
looks unnatural to me: traversing the sp-link nodes forces us to break
the loop
