On Wed, Feb 08, 2023, Mathias Krause wrote: > On 07.02.23 14:36, Zhi Wang wrote: > > On Wed, 1 Feb 2023 20:46:01 +0100 > > Mathias Krause <minipli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I suppose this is a critical path according to the patch comments and > > kvm_init_mmu() is a non-critical path. Is it better to seperate > > them now for saving the maintanence efforts in future? E.g. something heavier > > might be introduced into the kvm_init_mmu() path and slows down this path. > > I'll look into what can be done about it. But this change is a first > step that can be further optimized via follow up changes. > > As you can see from the numbers below, it's already way faster that what > we have right now, so I'd rather land this (imperfect) change sooner > than later and gradually improve on it. This will, however, likely only > bring minor speedups compared to this change, so they're less important, > IMHO. > > The question is really what's better from a maintenance point of view: > Keeping the call to the commonly used kvm_init_mmu() function or special > case even further? I fear the latter might regress easier, but YMMV, of > course. Agreed. Unless the performance benefits of getting super precise are significant, I would much rather keep things simpler and reduce the risk of introducing bugs. Bugs in this area in particular have a nasty habit of being really good at hiding.
