On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:19:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> phys_page_set_level is writing zeroes to a struct that has just been
> filled in by phys_map_node_alloc. Instead, tell phys_map_node_alloc
> whether to fill in the page "as a leaf" or "as a non-leaf".
>
> memcpy is faster than struc
On 03/06/2015 06:30, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 05/21/2015 06:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> memcpy is faster than struct assignment, which copies each bitfield
>> individually. Arguably a compiler bug, but memcpy is super-special
>> cased anyway so what could go wrong?
>
> The compiler has
On 05/21/2015 06:19 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
memcpy is faster than struct assignment, which copies each bitfield
individually. Arguably a compiler bug, but memcpy is super-special
cased anyway so what could go wrong?
The compiler has the option of doing the copy either way. Any way to actual
On Thu, May 21, 2015 at 03:19:58PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> phys_page_set_level is writing zeroes to a struct that has just been
> filled in by phys_map_node_alloc. Instead, tell phys_map_node_alloc
> whether to fill in the page "as a leaf" or "as a non-leaf".
>
> memcpy is faster than struc
phys_page_set_level is writing zeroes to a struct that has just been
filled in by phys_map_node_alloc. Instead, tell phys_map_node_alloc
whether to fill in the page "as a leaf" or "as a non-leaf".
memcpy is faster than struct assignment, which copies each bitfield
individually. Arguably a compil
