Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Date: 2017-02-14 09:41:10
Also in:
kvm, linux-arch, lkml
Possibly related (same subject, not in this thread)
- 2017-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function · Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
- 2017-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function · Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
- 2017-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function · Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
- 2017-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function · hpa@zytor.com
- 2017-02-13 · Re: [PATCH v2] x86/paravirt: Don't make vcpu_is_preempted() a callee-save function · Waiman Long <longman@redhat.com>
On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 05:34:01PM -0500, Waiman Long wrote:
It is the address of &steal_time that will exceed the 32-bit limit.
That seems extremely unlikely. That would mean we have more than 4G worth of per-cpu variables declared in the kernel.