On 23/12/2014 09:16, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Any thoughts as to whether it should be tagged for stable? I haven't
> looked closely enough at the old pvclock code or the generated code to
> have much of an opinion there. It'll be a big speedup for non-pvclock
> users at least.
Yes, please.
Pa
On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:21 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 23/12/2014 01:39, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> This is a dramatic simplification and speedup of the vdso pvclock read
>> code. Is it correct?
>>
>> Andy Lutomirski (2):
>> x86, vdso: Use asm volatile in __getcpu
>> x86, vdso, pvcloc
On 23/12/2014 01:39, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> This is a dramatic simplification and speedup of the vdso pvclock read
> code. Is it correct?
>
> Andy Lutomirski (2):
> x86, vdso: Use asm volatile in __getcpu
> x86, vdso, pvclock: Simplify and speed up the vdso pvclock reader
Patch 1 is ok,
This is a dramatic simplification and speedup of the vdso pvclock read
code. Is it correct?
Andy Lutomirski (2):
x86, vdso: Use asm volatile in __getcpu
x86, vdso, pvclock: Simplify and speed up the vdso pvclock reader
arch/x86/include/asm/vgtod.h | 6 ++--
arch/x86/vdso/vclock_gettime.c
4 matches
Mail list logo