> -----Original Message----- > From: Dario Faggioli [mailto:dario.faggi...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2016 9:31 PM > To: Jan Beulich <jbeul...@suse.com>; Wu, Feng <feng...@intel.com> > Cc: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>; George Dunlap > <george.dun...@eu.citrix.com>; Tian, Kevin <kevin.t...@intel.com>; xen- > de...@lists.xen.org; Keir Fraser <k...@xen.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v10 6/7] vmx: VT-d posted-interrupt core logic handling > > On Wed, 2016-01-20 at 04:35 -0700, Jan Beulich wrote: > > > > > On 20.01.16 at 12:20, <feng...@intel.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Then you didn't understand: The question isn't this path, but the > > > > path where the hook gets called if non-NULL (and hence the > > > > possibility to avoid such needless calls). > > > > > > I understand you mean the overhead happens when the hooks > > > is called. My point is the hook is not called in a critical path, > > > so I doubt > > > whether it worth doing so to make the logic complex. > > > > Are you sure scheduling code is not a critical path? > > > TBH, I like Jan's point... It's always good to make all we can to avoid > calling the hook, if unnecessary. > > Does it really complicates things a lot? Feng, can you give it a try?
Sure, I will try it and discuss with your guys if I meet some issues in future. Thanks, Feng > > Regards, > Dario > -- > <<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere) > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli > Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK) _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
