On Wed, Mar 20, 2024, Dave Hansen wrote: > On 3/20/24 05:09, Huang, Kai wrote: > > I can try to do if you guys believe this should be done, and should be done > > earlier than later, but I am not sure _ANY_ optimization around SEAMCALL will > > have meaningful performance improvement. > > I don't think Sean had performance concerns. > > I think he was having a justifiably violent reaction to how much more > complicated the generated code is to do a SEAMCALL versus a good ol' KVM > hypercall. Yep. The code essentially violates the principle of least surprise. I genuinely thought I was dumping the wrong function(s) when I first looked at the output.
