[Xen-devel] Re: next->vcpu_dirty_cpumask checking at the top of context_switch()

[Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 16/04/2009 16:16, "Jan Beulich" <jbeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Bottom line question is - can't the second !cpus_empty() check go away
> altogether, and shouldn't the argument passed to flush_tlb_mask() be
> dirty_mask instead of next->vcpu_dirty_cpumask?

If you think cpus_empty() checks/warns/bugs could do with sanitising, please
send that on separately from other performance-related changes. And I'll let
you know what I think of it when I can see the all the details.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel