search for: bwlq

On 2/13/20 11:23 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote: > Yes, investigating this is on the list for future optimizations (besides > caching CPUID results). My idea is to use alternatives patching for > this. But the exception handling is needed anyway because #VC > exceptions happen very early already, basically the first thing after > setting up a stack is calling verify_cpu(), which uses CPUID.

...der has to deal with register allocation, relocations and other things) but the principle is as I described. The function calls are processed too so that we can set our own handlers to execute at the beginning of a function and right before its exit. Yes, the functions like read[bwql]() and write[bwlq]() are usually inline but they pose no problem: on x86 they compile to ordinary MOV instructions and the like which are handled as I described above. The instrumented code will access the ioremapped area the same way as the original code would, no need for single-stepping or emulation in this case...

On Fri, 18 Oct 2013 00:11:15 +0400 Eugene Shatokhin <euspectre at gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > Good to know that! > > Yes, it should be faster than page faulting, although I haven't done the > benchmarking yet. And yes, it is not needed to disable all but one CPU. In > my current implementation, I use an ordered workqueue to send the data to > the mmapped output

...allocation, relocations and other things) but the principle is as > I described. > > The function calls are processed too so that we can set our own handlers to > execute at the beginning of a function and right before its exit. > > Yes, the functions like read[bwql]() and write[bwlq]() are usually inline > but they pose no problem: on x86 they compile to ordinary MOV instructions > and the like which are handled as I described above. > > The instrumented code will access the ioremapped area the same way as the > original code would, no need for single-stepping...