From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1750950AbdAXLhj (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Tue, 24 Jan 2017 06:37:39 -0500
Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.17.12]:49284 "EHLO mout.web.de"
        rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
        id S1750714AbdAXLhh (ORCPT <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Tue, 24 Jan 2017 06:37:37 -0500
Subject: Re: KVM: Fine-tuning for several function implementations
To: Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovitsch.priv.at>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
References: <a2fb541a-7a7d-1f78-b587-1191b9832088@users.sourceforge.net>
 <5e40aa05-ccdf-0995-e1c4-a331d1da998a@redhat.com>
 <a1a42521-ca5c-8bff-0121-d4b63fd570f3@users.sourceforge.net>
 <1485224105.31460.1.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <15d06a81-28bf-7fd9-ce4b-d3d07383e8b4@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2017 12:36:39 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.6.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1485224105.31460.1.camel@petrovitsch.priv.at>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:73m5sjm/FeglvJ0WKnILvaslDf3Vo5vXeJIVH0ntEhoTVZpzG8L
 QjtTT4JmKhyjUwY3wrZc8CzEpD++q5wpJHKEQO1mnlQAeeqfJBgpLoHGsS+Au2By+8T4Gx/
 cWsu4teSrcUz3GGx8NLPKoTWmGtSN/KpNDvJpO/l11BlrxMz9fSIk4RYtt2x8u7/vF5vDyT
 ckw0zW4j+hpc24Kyom8Lg==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:3Q9ttd7FC5g=:OZvPSrIz3mMHadstC2rKXP
 UVNak0+bKKLTpwim4VAGwGahNApjuVppQtnoHPUFtD/JkzR/1+UhjuFKDD44r3sUz4jp0fByZ
 JCIZ+pj7p4kbz4dzkaN1lJlzjN1UTK777oiuFFqSEVk2+mMsO68qZpkOy5brlJRNCqC/xbVJz
 CFoe6SwCGblWHQ+Gs2MzTN5BSVCdlS1lJTUpQhzoAGq24rWdkFbEnj7wT4953XalhtEk9rxzZ
 p6lYzfS92wIcnxIfIZ3C2Bw5tuvmJPtcOn3PfNyt7HBXiYcsJSlOuhsT9/sNttn+rXKWNjvLM
 2i2HVwY1VmjDXKfJg+DNkhKTHl7sxvWh689XJzSIxs1ZA19rX1qgH7mZJSJI8ItoazndluTw0
 4Fan8U2X+z7aTymtpFjSUE0/e56lqAzCjd/zl7+snG1RBNtpr/8hWG4PQKvPjVYj1NkLB7XWI
 +nlqhfOjQEOcSJx56TZYkoHYMBq5dxYM+9/wqi/WfUJAw+OMWWWieNkgS6ZvhrpQN+lHesg1A
 sWqhqWCAjPxSFYFD+5EXtsbLTquOC4ILj8IiiAZqNqDvF1K/hAWGcbmolbwTNM8PIdsAvemMw
 DNIugKK1I+GO/mqZntY4VvtasYBjYmCyILTEEtcX5GvFUvM1w1K0WI8n91gogWMH5goG6+qqL
 e9LJDZTJnPH8A5xMZLT3xkzxQ20ftUYMI3lr6Omqd+pe+++ICtm36l975anWvlKoermFHt6Pa
 4m1X1Kvte1R5QVTdDL5M6sSmP38ui53dhjCRz8HXNuuQazDCzd15hRh5aeoAtflqFMh16FkQw
 OMo9zcx
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

>> Would others like to help in approaches for checking corresponding
>> run time changes a bit more?
> 
> You propose the patch

I suggested additional changes which can get an usual mixture of agreements
and rejections.


> and others should do the work to get it accepted?

Not directly. - I imagine that there are further collaboration possibilities,
aren't there?

Which benchmarks (and test metrics) would you trust for the desired software evolution?

Regards,
Markus