On 21/05/15 15:53, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>> On 21.05.15 at 15:36, <david.vra...@citrix.com> wrote: >> On 21/05/15 11:32, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>> On 20.05.15 at 17:54, <david.vra...@citrix.com> wrote: >>>> @@ -827,9 +828,11 @@ __gnttab_map_grant_ref( >>>> if ( (wrc + rdc) == 0 ) >>>> err = iommu_map_page(ld, frame, frame, IOMMUF_readable); >>>> } >>>> + >>>> + double_gt_lock(lgt, rgt); >>> >>> unlock. And with this code path actually used (due to the bug it's >>> pretty clear it didn't get exercised in your testing), how does >>> performance look like? >> >> I think it will be no worse than what it was before -- this path already >> really sucks (mapcount() loops over 1000s of entries). I don't care >> about this path at all. > > It's kind of strange that you don't care about this case - afaict we're > not getting there by default solely because dom0-strict mode is not > currently the default (albeit arguably it should be).
What's your point? Are you going to refuse this series unless it also optimizes dom0-strict mode? David _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
