Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/30/2010 12:05 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: >> If 'oos_shadow' == 0, intercepting invlpg command is really >> unnecessary. >> >> And it's good for us to compare the performance between enable >> 'oos_shadow' >> and disable 'oos_shadow' >> >> @@ -74,8 +74,9 @@ static int dbg = 0; >> module_param(dbg, bool, 0644); >> #endif >> >> -static int oos_shadow = 1; >> +int __read_mostly oos_shadow = 1; >> module_param(oos_shadow, bool, 0644); >> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(oos_shadow); >> > > Please rename to kvm_oos_shadow to reduce potential for conflict with > other global names. > > But really, this is a debug option, I don't expect people to run with > oos_shadow=0, so there's not much motivation to optimize it. Agreed, but, 'oos_shadow' option is document in Documentation/kernel-parameters.txt, if it's just a debug option, i think we do better not document it. Thanks, Xiao -- 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
