From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756620AbZEVE3O (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2009 00:29:14 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751590AbZEVE25 (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2009 00:28:57 -0400 Received: from claw.goop.org ([74.207.240.146]:46234 "EHLO claw.goop.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751551AbZEVE1h (ORCPT ); Fri, 22 May 2009 00:27:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4A1629BA.9070309@goop.org> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 21:27:38 -0700 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.21 (X11/20090320) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Xin, Xiaohui" CC: Chuck Ebbert , Ingo Molnar , "Li, Xin" , "Nakajima, Jun" , "H. Peter Anvin" , Nick Piggin , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Xen-devel Subject: Re: Performance overhead of paravirt_ops on native identified References: <4A0B62F7.5030802@goop.org> <20090521184233.3c3e97ad@dhcp-100-2-144.bos.redhat.com> <4A15DA4E.2090505@goop.org> In-Reply-To: X-Enigmail-Version: 0.95.6 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Xin, Xiaohui wrote: > Remember we have done one experiment with "jump", the result shows seems the overhead is even more than the call. > I don't think you had mentioned that. You're saying that a call->jmp->ret is slower than call->call->ret->ret? J