Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 08 Nov 2009 08:44:44 -0800 | From | "H. Peter Anvin" <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 02/11] Add "handle page fault" PV helper. |
| |
On 11/08/2009 04:51 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 11/08/2009 01:36 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote: >>>> Three existing callbacks are: kmemcheck, mmiotrace, notifier. Two >>>> of them kmemcheck, mmiotrace are enabled only for debugging, should >>>> not be performance concern. And notifier call sites (two of them) >>>> are deliberately, as explained by comment, not at the function entry, >>>> so can't be unified with others. (And kmemcheck also has two different >>>> call site BTW) >>> >>> We want mmiotrace to be generic distro capable so the overhead when >>> the hook is not used is of concern. >> >> Maybe we should generalize paravirt-ops patching in case if (x) f() is >> deemed too expensive. > > Yes, that's a nice idea. We have quite a number of 'conditional > callbacks' in various critical paths that could be made lighter via such > a technique. > > It would also free new callbacks from the 'it increases overhead even if > unused' criticism and made it easier to add them. >
There are a number of other things were we permanently bind to a single instance of something, too. Optimizing those away would be nice. Consider memcpy(), where we may want to have different implementations for different processors.
-hpa
-- H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.
| |