On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 17:31:28 -0700 Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]> wrote: > Chris Wright wrote: > > Yes, and I think we can still improve performance although I can't > > see anyway to help out the modular case, so I guess it will have to > > incur the hit that's always been there. > > Broaden the paravirt patching machinery? > so far I've something much simpler in mind, I have a first prototype and it shows code that is pretty much optimal on modern cpus. I hope to have something postable in a week or so - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: "Simon Arlott" <[email protected]>
- Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
- References:
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Andreas Gruenbacher <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: Jan Engelhardt <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- From: James Morris <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Arjan van de Ven <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Chris Wright <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <[email protected]>
- Re: LSM conversion to static interface
- Prev by Date: [PATCH] bitops kernel-doc: expand macro
- Next by Date: Re: Linux v2.6.24-rc1
- Previous by thread: Re: LSM conversion to static interface [revert patch]
- Next by thread: Linux Security *Module* Framework (Was: LSM conversion to static interface
- Index(es):
 |