From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC V5 00/11] Paravirtualized ticketlocks Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:51:46 -0700 Message-ID: <4E9884C2.3090803@goop.org> References: <1318503245.24856.12.camel@twins> <4E971580.6030300@goop.org> <20111014141701.GA2433@redhat.com> <4E986B2B.60803@goop.org> <20111014183539.GE2433@redhat.com> <4E9881A6.9050106@zytor.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jason Baron , Peter Zijlstra , Linus Torvalds , Ingo Molnar , the arch/x86 maintainers , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Nick Piggin , Avi Kivity , Marcelo Tosatti , KVM , Andi Kleen , Xen Devel , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , konrad.wilk@oracle.com, rth@redhat.com To: "H. Peter Anvin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E9881A6.9050106@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 10/14/2011 11:38 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > On 10/14/2011 11:35 AM, Jason Baron wrote: >> A nice featuer of jump labels, is that it allows the various branches >> (currently we only support 2), to be written in c code (as opposed to asm), >> which means you can write your code as you normally would and access any >> parameters as you normally would - hopefully, making the code pretty >> readable as well. >> >> I hope this better clarifies the use-cases for the various mechanisms. >> > There is an important subcase which might be handy which would be to > allow direct patching of call instructions instead of using indirect calls. Right, that's how the pvops patching is primarily used. J