On Jan 31, 2010, at 2:24 AM, Keir Fraser wrote:
> On 31/01/2010 00:40, "Kaushik Kumar Ram" <kaushik@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> So how about making the clear of l1i in the l1 mask unconditional? I think
>>> that would be better, but I wasn't sure it is safe, since the first l1i you
>>> scan you may start halfway through, and thus legitimately have more work to
>>> do on that l1i on a later iteration of the outer loop. But I think that is
>>> the only case it is good to leave the l1 unmasked? Also, even better, on
>>> that second scan of that l1i, you would preferably want to scan only those
>>> bits in the l2 mask that you didn't scan on the first iteration of the outer
>>> loop!
>>
>> OK. I agree the following is a good compromise.
>> - Unconditionally clear l1 bits except the first l1i (but only if l2 is
>> scanned from halfway).
>> - Remember where the scanning began (both l1i and l2i) and stop scanning at
>> that point after wrapping around.
>> - Read active_evtchns() once per l1i (except the first l1i where you might
>> have to do it twice).
>
> Yes, sounds good. Are you going to make the patch?
OK. I will give it a shot.
-Kaushik
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home