[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1161547015.1919.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2006 20:56:55 +0100
From: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
Cc: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Muli Ben-Yehuda <muli@...ibm.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Kernel-based Virtual Machine
Ar Sul, 2006-10-22 am 10:37 +0200, ysgrifennodd Avi Kivity:
> I like this. Since we plan to support multiple vcpus per vm, the fs
> structure might look like:
Three times the syscall overhead is bad for an emulation very bad for an
emulation of a CPU whose virtualisation is half baked.
> It's certainly a lot more code though, and requires new syscalls. Since
> this is a little esoteric does it warrant new syscalls?
I think not - ioctl exists to avoid adding a billion esoteric one user
syscalls. The idea of a VFS sysfs type view of the running vm is great
for tools however so I wouldn't throw it out entirely or see it as ioctl
versus fs.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists