|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq
Keir Fraser write on 2006年11月24日 23:29:
> On 24/11/06 14:45, "Xu, Anthony" <anthony.xu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Until now, I can't see hypercall is faster than share PIC line.
>>
>> Can you enlighten me why we use hypercall?
>
> I didn't change it for speed but because it's cleaner. I believe it
> can be made no slower, with a bit of effort. x86 certainly won't be
> reverting to the shared state.
Can't share PIC line be done in a clean way?
I don't think so.
I think which one get better performance wins.
--Anthony
>
> -- Keir
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread> |
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, (continued)
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, Xu, Anthony
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, Xu, Anthony
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, Xu, Anthony
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, Xu, Anthony
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, Xu, Anthony
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq, Xu, Anthony
- RE: [Xen-devel][RFC]degradation on IPF due to hypercall set irq,
Xu, Anthony <=
|
|
|
|
|