On 7/28/20 11:53 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 28 Jul 2020 at 10:51, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com>
> wrote:
>> I'd rather uninline xen_enabled() but I'm not sure this has perf
>> penalties. Paolo is that OK to uninline it?
I suppose no because it is in various hot paths:
exec.c:588: if (xen_enabled() && memory_access_is_direct(mr, is_write)) {
exec.c:2243: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2326: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2478: } else if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2525: } else if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:2576: if (xen_enabled() && block->host == NULL) {
exec.c:2609: if (xen_enabled() && block->host == NULL) {
exec.c:2657: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:3625: if (xen_enabled()) {
exec.c:3717: if (xen_enabled()) {
include/exec/ram_addr.h:295: if (!mask && !xen_enabled()) {
>
> Can we just follow the same working pattern we already have
> for kvm_enabled() etc ?
This was the idea... I'll look at what I missed.
Phil.
