kvm: arm: vgic: Let one looping code instead of two looping code
PATCH 1/1 kvm: arm: vgic: Let one looping code instead of two looping code
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
--- virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c | 3 --- 1 file changed, 3 deletions(-)
virt/kvm/arm/vgic.c +0 -3
@@ -1959,9 +1959,6 @@ int kvm_vgic_create(struct kvm *kvm)if (!mutex_trylock (&vcpu->mutex)) goto out_unlock; vcpu_lock_idx = i; - } - -kvm_for_each_vcpu (i, vcpu, kvm) {if (vcpu->arch.has_run_once) goto out_unlock; }
Signature · 1 line
1.9.3
Quoted 4 lines · Chen Gang
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
Signed-off-by Chen Gang <[email protected]>
Performance? Please, this is vgic_create....
This does nothing else than introduce churn.
-Christoffer
Quoted 8 lines · Christoffer Dall
Quoted 4 lines · Chen Gang
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
Signed-off-by Chen Gang <[email protected]>Performance? Please, this is
vgic_create....
I guess your meaning is "this code is not performance sensitive", do not mean "1 looping can not get a little better performance than 2 looping". If what I guess is incorrect, please let me know.
Quoted 2 lines
This does nothing else than introduce churn.
I don't think it does nothing, it can let code simpler than before:
remove the redundant looping -- the 2 looping do the same thing which is commented just above the firstly looping.
And I don't know which churn this patch will introduce. At least, no one want to waste him/her time resources to intend churn, please provide more details about it.
If kvm does not like me, or does not like members to find issues based on reading source code, please let me know (no reply means kvm does not like me or this way), I will quit, so can save time resources both.
Thanks.
Signature · 3 lines
Chen Gang Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed
Quoted 8 lines · Christoffer Dall
Quoted 4 lines · Chen Gang
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
Signed-off-by Chen Gang <[email protected]>Performance? Please, this is
vgic_create....
I guess your meaning is "this code is not performance sensitive", do not mean "1 looping can not get a little better performance than 2 looping". If what I guess is incorrect, please let me know.
Quoted 2 lines
This does nothing else than introduce churn.
I don't think it does nothing, it can let code simpler than before:
remove the redundant looping -- the 2 looping do the same thing which is commented just above the firstly looping.
And I don't know which churn this patch will introduce. At least, no one want to waste him/her time resources to intend churn, please provide more details about it.
If kvm does not like me, or does not like members to find issues based on reading source code, please let me know (no reply means kvm does not like me or this way), I will quit, so can save time resources both.
Thanks.
Signature · 3 lines
Chen Gang Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed
Quoted 5 lines · Chen Gang
Quoted 4 lines · Christoffer Dall
Quoted 3 lines · Chen Gang
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 4 lines
Quoted 1 line
Signed-off-by Chen Gang <[email protected]>Performance? Please, this is
vgic_create....I guess your meaning is "this code is not performance sensitive", do not mean "1 looping can not get a little better performance than 2 looping". If what I guess is incorrect, please let me know.
I doubt if this is even measureable. Have you even looked at how this compiles?
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This does nothing else than introduce churn.
I don't think it does nothing, it can let code simpler than before:
remove the redundant looping -- the 2 looping do the same thing which is commented just above the firstly looping.
I don't think there's any big benefit here.
Quoted 9 lines
And I don't know which churn this patch will introduce. At least, no one want to waste him/her time resources to intend churn, please provide more details about it.
If kvm does not like me, or does not like members to find issues based on reading source code, please let me know (no reply means kvm does not like me or this way), I will quit, so can save time resources both.
I appreciate your efforts and welcome anybody to contribute to the code base. But you seem to be insisting on changing some insignificant details, and we just have bigger fish to fry right now. Sorry.
This is not about anyone not liking someone, it is about the code and whether there's a need to take this patch right now or not.
-Christoffer
Quoted 11 lines · Christoffer Dall
Quoted 10 lines · Chen Gang
Quoted 8 lines · Christoffer Dall
Quoted 4 lines · Chen Gang
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
Signed-off-by Chen Gang <[email protected]>Performance? Please, this is
vgic_create....
Quoted 8 lines
Quoted 4 lines
I guess your meaning is "this code is not performance sensitive", do not mean "1 looping can not get a little better performance than 2 looping". If what I guess is incorrect, please let me know.
I doubt if this is even measureable. Have you even looked at how this compiles?
I did not look at the related assembly code for O2.
But for me, it must be a little better than 2 loops: as far as I know, the compiler should/can not merge the 2 loops into 1 loop (it will change logical working flow, at least, need notice about lock/unlock).
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 6 lines
Quoted 2 lines
This does nothing else than introduce churn.
I don't think it does nothing, it can let code simpler than before:
remove the redundant looping -- the 2 looping do the same thing which is commented just above the firstly looping.I don't think there's any big benefit here.
Really, no big benefit here.
Quoted 9 lines
Quoted 9 lines
And I don't know which churn this patch will introduce. At least, no one want to waste him/her time resources to intend churn, please provide more details about it.
If kvm does not like me, or does not like members to find issues based on reading source code, please let me know (no reply means kvm does not like me or this way), I will quit, so can save time resources both.
Quoted 7 lines
I appreciate your efforts and welcome anybody to contribute to the code base. But you seem to be insisting on changing some insignificant details, and we just have bigger fish to fry right now. Sorry.
This is not about anyone not liking someone, it is about the code and whether there's a need to take this patch right now or not.
OK, thanks. Next, I shall try to find some bugs for it. And they are not urgent, since they are only found by reading source code.
And could you provide any information or suggestion for kvm common test? (e.g. "make check" in gcc or qemu). At present, I only let my kvm related patches pass compiling, not give additional test.
Thanks.
Signature · 3 lines
Chen Gang Open, share, and attitude like air, water, and life which God blessed
Quoted 8 lines · Christoffer Dall
Quoted 4 lines · Chen Gang
Use one looping instead of two, so can let code more simpler and get a little better performance.
Signed-off-by Chen Gang <[email protected]>Performance? Please, this is
vgic_create....
I guess your meaning is "this code is not performance sensitive", do not mean "1 looping can not get a little better performance than 2 looping". If what I guess is incorrect, please let me know.
Quoted 2 lines
This does nothing else than introduce churn.
I don't think it does nothing, it can let code simpler than before:
remove the redundant looping -- the 2 looping do the same thing which is commented just above the firstly looping.
And I don't know which churn this patch will introduce. At least, no one want to waste him/her time resources to intend churn, please provide more details about it.
If kvm does not like me, or does not like members to find issues based on reading source code, please let me know (no reply means kvm does not like me or this way), I will quit, so can save time resources both.
Thanks.
Signature · 3 lines
Chen Gang Open share and attitude like air water and life which God blessed