From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2014 11:48:31 +0000 Subject: [PATCH v9 4/5] arm64: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops In-Reply-To: References: <1389292336-9292-4-git-send-email-stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com> <20140217175552.GB8361@arm.com> Message-ID: <53316D0F.7040600@arm.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25/03/14 11:19, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > On Mon, 17 Feb 2014, Catalin Marinas wrote: >> On Mon, Feb 17, 2014 at 12:25:42PM +0000, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>> On Thu, 9 Jan 2014, Stefano Stabellini wrote: >>>> Introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING on ARM64. >>>> Necessary duplication of paravirt.h and paravirt.c with ARM. >>>> >>>> The only paravirt interface supported is pv_time_ops.steal_clock, so no >>>> runtime pvops patching needed. >>>> >>>> This allows us to make use of steal_account_process_tick for stolen >>>> ticks accounting. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini >>>> CC: will.deacon at arm.com >>>> CC: nico at linaro.org >>>> CC: marc.zyngier at arm.com >>>> CC: cov at codeaurora.org >>>> CC: arnd at arndb.de >>>> CC: olof at lixom.net >>>> CC: Catalin.Marinas at arm.com >>> >>> Catalin, Will, are you happy with this patch for 3.15? >> >> It's pretty small and looks fine to me. However, I would like someone >> with more virtualisation experience than me to ack it (e.g. Marc Z). > > Ping? Marc, could you please give it a review? Yup, that looks OK to me. It's a generic feature anyway, so I don't see any harm in enabling it for Xen. We may also use it for KVM at some point. Acked-by: Marc Zyngier M. -- Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...