From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] KVM MMU: do not intercept invlpg if 'oos_shadow' is disabled Date: Wed, 05 May 2010 17:26:40 +0300 Message-ID: <4BE18020.50506@redhat.com> References: <4BDA9C37.9070602@cn.fujitsu.com> <4BDA9C86.8080204@cn.fujitsu.com> <4BDA9CD0.6070501@cn.fujitsu.com> <4BDA9D58.6030407@cn.fujitsu.com> <4BDAA94A.8050407@redhat.com> <4BE16A82.4080807@cn.fujitsu.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , KVM list , LKML To: Xiao Guangrong Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4BE16A82.4080807@cn.fujitsu.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 05/05/2010 03:54 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 04/30/2010 12:05 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> >>> If 'oos_shadow' == 0, intercepting invlpg command is really >>> unnecessary. >>> >>> And it's good for us to compare the performance between enable >>> 'oos_shadow' >>> and disable 'oos_shadow' >>> >>> @@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ static int dbg = 0; >>> module_param(dbg, bool, 0644); >>> #endif >>> >>> -static int oos_shadow = 1; >>> +int __read_mostly oos_shadow = 1; >>> module_param(oos_shadow, bool, 0644); >>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(oos_shadow); >>> >>> >> Please rename to kvm_oos_shadow to reduce potential for conflict with >> other global names. >> >> But really, this is a debug option, I don't expect people to run with >> oos_shadow=0, so there's not much motivation to optimize it. >> > Agreed, but, 'oos_shadow' option is document in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt, > if it's just a debug option, i think we do better not document it. > It has to be documented, otherwise people complain :) Anyway the variable name and the option name don't have to be the same (I think). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function