WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] evtchn_do_upcall: search a snapshot of level 2

To: Kaushik Kumar Ram <kaushik@xxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] evtchn_do_upcall: search a snapshot of level 2 bits for pending upcalls
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 08:24:05 +0000
Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Sun, 31 Jan 2010 00:24:29 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <853A566F-BD8C-4CAE-B905-F3A8F6CE4EE7@xxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index: AcqiDhZMQ51tKTYITPin+g3Nb3wmsgAQKnzJ
Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] evtchn_do_upcall: search a snapshot of level 2 bits for pending upcalls
User-agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.23.0.091001
On 31/01/2010 00:40, "Kaushik Kumar Ram" <kaushik@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> So how about making the clear of l1i in the l1 mask unconditional? I think
>> that would be better, but I wasn't sure it is safe, since the first l1i you
>> scan you may start halfway through, and thus legitimately have more work to
>> do on that l1i on a later iteration of the outer loop. But I think that is
>> the only case it is good to leave the l1 unmasked? Also, even better, on
>> that second scan of that l1i, you would preferably want to scan only those
>> bits in the l2 mask that you didn't scan on the first iteration of the outer
>> loop!
> 
> OK. I agree the following is a good compromise.
> - Unconditionally clear l1 bits except the first l1i (but only if l2 is
> scanned from halfway).
> - Remember where the scanning began (both l1i and l2i) and stop scanning at
> that point after wrapping around.
> - Read active_evtchns() once per l1i (except the first l1i where you might
> have to do it twice).

Yes, sounds good. Are you going to make the patch?

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel