[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <453D2FFA.3040506@qumranet.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:11:22 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Antonio Vargas <windenntw@...il.com>
CC: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/13] KVM: vcpu execution loop
Antonio Vargas wrote:
>>
>> I could do that, but I feel that's more brittle. I might need more (or
>> other) fields later on. It will also cost me more pushes on the stack
>> (no real performance or space impact, just C64-era frugality).
>
> maybe thats the mindsent needed to make these virtual cpu patches
> without eating away all the cpu power with more than needed
> abstractions ;)
>
Unfortunately not. Saving a cycle or two doesn't help when a vm exit
costs thousands of cycles, and worse, kills your tlb.
The key is eliminating unnecessary exits. I have plans for massively
optimizing the mmu virtualization, and the next AMD core will do that in
hardware (look for a "nested page tables" sticker before you buy).
--
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.
-
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