Re: [RFC PATCH 0/3] generic hypercall support

Gregory Haskins
2009-05-08T14:16:12Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1655 bytes --]

Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, May 07, 2009 at 01:03:45PM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>
>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>
>>> * Gregory Haskins (ghaskins@novell.com) wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Chris Wright wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> VF drivers can also have this issue (and typically use mmio).
>>>>> I at least have a better idea what your proposal is, thanks for
>>>>> explanation. Are you able to demonstrate concrete benefit with it yet
>>>>> (improved latency numbers for example)?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I had a test-harness/numbers for this kind of thing, but its a bit
>>>> crufty since its from ~1.5 years ago. I will dig it up, update it, and
>>>> generate/post new numbers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> That would be useful, because I keep coming back to pio and shared
>>> page(s) when think of why not to do this. Seems I'm not alone in that.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> -chris
>>>
>>>
>> I completed the resurrection of the test and wrote up a little wiki on
>> the subject, which you can find here:
>>
>> http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/WhyHypercalls
>>
>> Hopefully this answers Chris' "show me the numbers" and Anthony's "Why
>> reinvent the wheel?" questions.
>>
>> I will include this information when I publish the updated v2 series
>> with the s/hypercall/dynhc changes.
>>
>> Let me know if you have any questions.
>>
>
> Greg,
>
> I think comparison is not entirely fair.

<snip>

FYI: I've update the test/wiki to (hopefully) address your concerns.

http://developer.novell.com/wiki/index.php/WhyHypercalls

Regards,
-Greg

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 266 bytes --]