Re: [Xen-ia64-devel] [PATCH 0/7 TAKE 2] xenoprof for xen/ia64

[Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Alex.
Thank you for your review.

I updated the patches and attached the tar balls which also
includes missing patches in xen-ia64-unstable.hg.
Please find it.

On Mon, Nov 27, 2006 at 03:06:27PM -0700, Alex Williamson wrote:

> +       if ( !softirq_pending(smp_processor_id()) ) {
> +               if (!can_do_pal_halt)
> +                       safe_halt();
> +               else
> +                       cpu_relax();
> +       }
> 
> Is this logic backwards?  It's opposite the kernel.

Ouch! fixed.


> --- a/xen/include/public/arch-ia64.h    Thu Oct 26 14:27:25 2006 +0900
> +++ b/xen/include/public/arch-ia64.h    Wed Nov 22 20:41:08 2006 +0900
> @@ -388,6 +388,9 @@ DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(vcpu_guest_conte
>  #define IA64_DOM0VP_tlb_untrack_page    10
> 
> 
> +/* xen perfmon */
> +#define IA64_DOM0VP_perfmon             11
> +
> 
> We don't have IA64_DOM0VP_tlb_untrack_page in the upstream tree, should
> this be IA64_DOM0VP op #8? (or are we missing a patch upstream)

I changed it to 8.


> ---- 12593_12361c7cc046_xenoprof_ia64_linux_side.patch
> 
> Having two different definitions for __perfmon_init/exit() for the
> non-Xen code path is confusing.  Consider accessing it through a macro
> in the Xen path (ex. xen_permon_init).  Then __perfmon_init/exit() could
> be static for the non-Xen case (not that I'm a fan of adding more
> #ifdefs).  Perhaps we need a #define LINUX_STATIC (?)

I hope I refined it.


-- 
yamahata

xenoprof-ia64.tar.bz2
Description: Text document

_______________________________________________
Xen-ia64-devel mailing list
Xen-ia64-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-ia64-devel