From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V5 00/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:37:19 -0700 Message-ID: <4E98815F.6080105@zytor.com> References: <1318503245.24856.12.camel@twins> <4E971580.6030300@goop.org> <20111014141701.GA2433@redhat.com> <4E986B2B.60803@goop.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Nick Piggin , KVM , konrad.wilk@oracle.com, Peter Zijlstra , Jason Baron , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Andi Kleen , Avi Kivity , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Ingo Molnar , Linus Torvalds , Xen Devel To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E986B2B.60803@goop.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 10/14/2011 10:02 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Jump labels are essentially binary: you can use path A or path B. pvops > are multiway: there's no limit to the number of potential number of > paravirtualized hypervisor implementations. At the moment we have 4: > native, Xen, KVM and lguest. > This isn't (or shouldn't be) really true... it should be possible to do an N-way jump label even if the current mechanism doesn't. -hpa