Emilio G. Cota writes:
> On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 17:18:10 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
>> Well this is the first re-spin of the series posted last week. I've
>> added a bunch of additional patches to be more aggressive with
>> avoiding bouncing locks but to be honest the numbers don't seem to
>> ma
Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 07/07/2016 18:04, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>>> > I think the first 3 patches are ready to take if the TCG maintainers
>>> > want to:
>>> >
>>> > tcg: Ensure safe tb_jmp_cache lookup out of 'tb_lock'
>>> > tcg: set up tb->page_addr before insertion
>>> > tcg: c
On 07/07/2016 18:04, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>> > I think the first 3 patches are ready to take if the TCG maintainers
>> > want to:
>> >
>> > tcg: Ensure safe tb_jmp_cache lookup out of 'tb_lock'
>> > tcg: set up tb->page_addr before insertion
>> > tcg: cpu-exec: remove tb_lock from t
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 17:18:10 +0100, Alex Bennée wrote:
> Well this is the first re-spin of the series posted last week. I've
> added a bunch of additional patches to be more aggressive with
> avoiding bouncing locks but to be honest the numbers don't seem to
> make it worth it.
How many thread
Hi,
Well this is the first re-spin of the series posted last week. I've
added a bunch of additional patches to be more aggressive with
avoiding bouncing locks but to be honest the numbers don't seem to
make it worth it.
I think the first 3 patches are ready to take if the TCG maintainers
want to:
