On Thu, 2009-11-19 at 18:08 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > On 11/20/09 09:59, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > > On 20.11.2009, at 02:54, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > > >> On 11/20/09 07:58, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>> > >>> Am 19.11.2009 um 23:55 schrieb Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>: > >>> > >>>> On 11/18/09 20:56, Alexander Graf wrote: > >>>>> Currently we use pv-ops to tell linux not to do anything on io_delay. > >>>>> > >>>>> While the basic idea is good IMHO, I don't see why we would need > >>>>> pv-ops > >>>>> for that. The io delay function already has a switch that can do > >>>>> nothing > >>>>> if you're so inclined. > >>>>> > >>>>> So here's a patch (stacked on top of the previous pv-ops series) that > >>>>> removes the io delay pv-ops hook and just sets the native io delay > >>>>> variable instead. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> Can you just get rid of the io_delay op altogether? If KVM doesn't > >>>> need > >>>> it, then nobody does. > >>> > >>> Sure, can do. That'd be a separate patch though. > >> > >> Yep. A patch each for VMI and Xen to remove the dependency, and a final > >> patch to remove the op. Hm, looks like VMI has a specific ROM call for > >> io_delay; I wonder what it does. > > > > Oh so it's actually using it? Feel like doing the removal then? I > > don't really want to mess with VMI code :-) > > I would post the patch and see if Alok naks it. But I somehow doubt > vmware is doing anything profound with that call. > Yeah removing it is fine with me. That call is just a no-op anyways, and, if there are other ways for avoiding the IO delay cost we can use that one too. Alok -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
