Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] do_softirq() of Xen/IA64

To:

Isaku Yamahata <yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject:

From:

Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date:

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:40:29 +0100

Cc:

xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Delivery-date:

Fri, 30 Jun 2006 04:40:50 -0700

Envelope-to:

www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In-reply-to:

<20060630104714.GB5853%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

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/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>

List-unsubscribe:

<http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>

References:

<20060630104714.GB5853%yamahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Sender:

xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx


On 30 Jun 2006, at 11:47, Isaku Yamahata wrote:

It is needless to use smp_processor_id() twice on x86.
Should #ifndef be used around cpu = smp_processor_id()?
Or should something like __ARCH_HAVE_DO_SORTIRQ be introduced?

I doubt that this is a worthwhile optimisation. I'll take the patchas-is, but add a comment.


 -- Keir


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

<Prev in Thread]	Current Thread	[Next in Thread>
[Xen-devel] [PATCH] do_softirq() of Xen/IA64, Isaku Yamahata Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] do_softirq() of Xen/IA64, Keir Fraser <=

Previous by Date:

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] do_softirq() of Xen/IA64, Isaku Yamahata

Next by Date:

Re: [Xen-devel] Easy user-space usage of xenstore, Jacob Gorm Hansen

Previous by Thread:

[Xen-devel] [PATCH] do_softirq() of Xen/IA64, Isaku Yamahata

Next by Thread:

[Xen-devel] Xen Scheduler : What's the main difference between BVT and EDF?, rickey berkeley

Indexes:

[Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists]