On 04.05.22 09:53, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 19.04.22 10:01, Juergen Gross wrote:
>> On 24.03.22 15:01, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> In order to avoid indirect function calls on the hypercall path as
>>> much as possible this series is removing the hypercall function tables
>>> and is replacing the hypercall handler calls via the function array
>>> by automatically generated call macros.
>>>
>>> Another by-product of generating the call macros is the automatic
>>> generating of the hypercall handler prototypes from the same data base
>>> which is used to generate the macros.
>>>
>>> This has the additional advantage of using type safe calls of the
>>> handlers and to ensure related handler (e.g. PV and HVM ones) share
>>> the same prototypes.
>>>
>>> A very brief performance test (parallel build of the Xen hypervisor
>>> in a 6 vcpu guest) showed a very slim improvement (less than 1%) of
>>> the performance with the patches applied. The test was performed using
>>> a PV and a PVH guest.
>>
>> A gentle ping regarding this series.
>>
>> I think patch 1 still lacks an Ack from x86 side. Other than that
>> patches 1, 2 and 4 should be fine to go in, as they are cleanups which
>> are fine on their own IMHO.
>>
>> Andrew, you wanted to get some performance numbers of the series using
>> the Citrix test environment. Any news on the progress here?
>
> And another ping.
>
> Andrew, could you please give some feedback regarding performance
> testing progress?
This is becoming ridiculous. Andrew, I know you are busy, but not reacting
at all to explicit questions is kind of annoying.
BTW, the question regarding patches 1, 2 and 4 to go in as being cleanups
still stands.
Juergen