Re: [PATCH RFC] paravirt_ops: refactor struct paravirt_ops into smallerpv_*_ops
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge
Date: Fri Sep 28 2007 - 20:40:46 EST
Nakajima, Jun wrote:
> Yes. For the native, "safe_halt" is "sti; hlt". The "native_halt" is
> just "hlt". So the para_virt part of "hlt" could be moved to pv_cpu_ops,
> and the "sti" part stays in pv_irq_ops.
By "sti part", you mean the full "sti; hlt" sequence of safe_halt,
right? Since it needs to be an atomic sequence to avoid race
conditions, so the native sequence has to be precisely "sti; hlt" to
take advantage of the sti shadow, and other pv-backends will need their
own way to guarantee this atomicity.
But I'm quite happy to put plain "hlt" into cpu_ops as halt_cpu() or
something (and perhaps rename safe_halt to something a bit more
> Actually my concern was that such misc ops might grow to include the
> things don't fit well anywhere else. To me, then pv_lazy_ops (with just
> .set_mode) might be better.
The lazy interface has needed a rethink anyway.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/