lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Oct]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH RFC V5 00/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks
On 10/13/2011 09:44 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>
> Yeah, that's a good question. There are three mechanisms with somewhat
> overlapping concerns:
>
> * alternative()
> * pvops patching
> * jump_labels
>
> Alternative() is for low-level instruction substitution, and really only
> makes sense at the assembler level with one or two instructions.
>
> pvops is basically a collection of ordinary _ops structures full of
> function pointers, but it has a layer of patching to help optimise it.
> In the common case, this just replaces an indirect call with a direct
> one, but in some special cases it can inline code. This is used for
> small, extremely performance-critical things like cli/sti, but it
> awkward to use in general because you have to specify the inlined code
> as a parameterless asm.
>
> Jump_labels is basically an efficient way of doing conditionals
> predicated on rarely-changed booleans - so it's similar to pvops in that
> it is effectively a very ordinary C construct optimised by dynamic code
> patching.

Then there is static_cpu_has(), which is basically jump labels
implemented using the alternatives mechanism.

If nothing else it would be good to:

1. Make more general use of ops patching;
2. Merge mechanisms where practical.

-hpa

--
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel. I don't speak on their behalf.



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-10-17 18:37    [W:0.079 / U:0.632 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site