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 12:10:33 -0700 Message-ID: <4E988929.8040801@goop.org> References: <1318503245.24856.12.camel@twins> <4E971580.6030300@goop.org> <20111014141701.GA2433@redhat.com> <4E986B2B.60803@goop.org> <4E98815F.6080105@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 To: "H. Peter Anvin" Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4E98815F.6080105@zytor.com> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 10/14/2011 11:37 AM, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > 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. We probably don't want all those implementations (near) inline, so they would end up being plain function calls anyway. J