Re: [PATCH] kvm: optimize ISR lookups

Thomas Gleixner
2012-05-21T23:11:08Z

On Tue, 22 May 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 12:14:18AM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 May 2012, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 11:04:25PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > > @@ -242,6 +262,25 @@ static inline void apic_clear_irr(int vec, struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> > > > > apic->irr_pending = true;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > +static inline void apic_set_isr(int vec, struct kvm_lapic *apic)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + if (!__apic_test_and_set_vector(vec, apic->regs + APIC_ISR))
> > > > > + ++apic->isr_count;
> > > > > + ASSERT(apic->isr_count > MAX_APIC_VECTOR);
> > > >
> > > > I'm really curious what you observed when defining DEBUG in that file.
> > > >
> > > > Clearly you never did.
> > >
> > > Sorry :(
> > > Yes clearly silly, thanks for pointing this out.
> >
> > That's all you have a reply for? That's the least of the problems ....
>
> Others are not my fault :)
>
> Seriously, if Avi/Marcelo want to rewrite the ISR emulation
> I can help. If they want to keep it 1:1 with hardware
> then what I wrote seems the only way.

Seriously. You submitted a code monkey patch, solving a problem by
curing the symptom, but not the root cause.

And then you hide behind Avi and Marcelo?

Did you ever think about the real problem of that lapic emulation?

Let's assume you did and it occured to you that the whole thing is
wrong and backwards, then you still insist on adding more bullshit to
that file instead of optimizing and fixing it in the first place?

Thanks,

tglx