On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 10:41:55AM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote: > I'll try to implement Drew's suggestion re: syncing global variables > and then looking up CPU ID. If I can do that I'll upload another patch > set for s390, aarch64, and x86. If I can't I'll move this test to the > x86 subdirectory. > > I apologize for not responding to the comments on the previous version > of this patch set. I'm still learning the mailing list etiquette. In > the future is it preferable that I reply to those comments when I > upload a new patch set addressing them, or should I add a note in the > new patch emails about the comments I addressed in that update? It's typically enough to just create a changelog in the cover letter. E.g. v3: - Added ... - Dropped ... - Fixed ... - Picked up r-b's v2: - Added ... - Dropped ... - Fixed ... - Picked up r-b's > > I don't have any aarch64 or s390 hardware handy to test on so I'll try > to move support for those architectures to separate commits at the end > of the series, and mark them untested. I'll test on aarch64, and I can also provide fixes if necessary. Thanks, drew > > Thank you for your quick responses! > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 6:56 AM Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 09:33:34AM -0500, Peter Xu wrote: > > > On Mon, Dec 16, 2019 at 01:38:54PM -0800, Ben Gardon wrote: > > > > While userfaultfd, KVM's demand paging implementation, is not specific > > > > to KVM, having a benchmark for its performance will be useful for > > > > guiding performance improvements to KVM. As a first step towards creating > > > > a userfaultfd demand paging test, create a simple memory access test, > > > > based on dirty_log_test. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Ben Gardon <bgardon@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > It's fine to start with x86-only for this test, but imho it would be > > > better to mention that in cover letter, or reply to reviewer comments > > > on that you removed aarch64 from previous post. > > > > I'd also prefer that if it's x86-only that it be put in the x86_64 > > subdirectory and drop the arch #ifdefs. The question is why is it > > x86-only for now though? Will it take a lot of work to port it to > > other architectures? Or does it just need testing by someone with > > the hardware? > > > > Thanks, > > drew > > >
