Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> the 'fastcall removal' changes to paravirt.c were over-eager: they
> removed fastcall annotations from functions that are (or might be)
> implemented in assembly. So if someone changes the compiler model,
> such as -pg which disables regparm, the kernel b
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
> >> asm-x86/paravirt.h?
> >
> > yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and
> > still is).
>
> Do you have a patch to do this already?
yes, attached. Ack?
In
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > so this patch adds back fastcall annotations. This serves as
> > documentation for assembly calling-convention dependencies as well.
>
> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
I
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 10:45:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
> > >> asm-x86/paravirt.h?
> > >
> > > yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and
> > > still is).
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > so this patch adds back fastcall annotations. This serves as
>> > documentation for assembly calling-convention dependencies as well.
>>
>> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>
> if then th
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> >
> > if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
>
> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...]
nice word-bending there. I'm asking for pre-existing annotations to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
Should we re-add them for the function pointers in
asm-x86/paravirt.h?
>>> yes, yes, yes. :-) It was a nightmare to sort it out in -rt (and
>>> still is).
>>>
>> Do you have a patch to do t
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
>>>
>> Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code. [...]
>>
>
> nice word-be
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> > >
> > > if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> >
> > Well you're asking for the ugly hacks for out of tree code.
* Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
>
> >>> if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> >>>
> >> Well you're asking for
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:47:10PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> >
> > >>> if then t
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:20:06PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > >> You should rename it then to "asmcall" or something.
> > > >
> > > > if then that should be a separate renaming patch.
> > >
> > >
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > [...] -pg should in theory work with -mregparms.
>
> last i checked it didnt work - i'll re-check that.
earlier gcc versions had problems with -mregparm and with -pg. I just
did a quick test with latest gcc and at a quick glance it seems to work
be
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 05:44:17PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > [...] -pg should in theory work with -mregparms.
> >
> > last i checked it didnt work - i'll re-check that.
>
> earlier gcc versions had problems with -mregparm and with -pg. I just
Hey Jeff,
Yes, that double negative was a slipup. I did get some numbers out and they
look pretty good. I ran upto 5 instances of UML simultaneously and in the
tickful case, each instance adds roughly about 100 wakeups per second. So
after 5 instances, C3 residency comes down to about 95% when all
On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:21:03PM -0300, Hrishikesh wrote:
> Yes, that double negative was a slipup. I did get some numbers out and they
> look pretty good. I ran upto 5 instances of UML simultaneously and in the
> tickful case, each instance adds roughly about 100 wakeups per second.
HZ == 100,
On 10/23/07, Jeff Dike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 04:21:03PM -0300, Hrishikesh wrote:
> >> Yes, that double negative was a slipup. I did get some numbers out and
> they
> >> look pretty good. I ran upto 5 instances of UML simultaneously and in
> the
> >> tickful case, ea
17 matches
Mail list logo
