[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4B312252.4040009@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2009 14:47:30 -0500
From: Gregory Haskins <gregory.haskins@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
torvalds@...ux-foundation.org,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
netdev@...r.kernel.org,
"alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net"
<alacrityvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] AlacrityVM guest drivers for 2.6.33
On 12/22/09 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 12/22/2009 09:41 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote:
>>
>>> It means that kvm locking suddenly affects more of the kernel.
>>>
>>>
>> Thats ok. This would only be w.r.t. devices that are bound to the KVM
>> instance anyway, so they better know what they are doing (and they do).
>>
>>
>
> It's okay to the author of that device. It's not okay to the kvm
> developers who are still evolving the locking and have to handle all
> devices that use xinterface.
Perhaps, but like it or not, if you want to do in-kernel you need to
invoke backends. And if you want to invoke backends, limiting it to
thread wakeups is, well, limiting. For one, you miss out on that
exploit I mentioned earlier which can help sometimes.
Besides, the direction that Marcelo and I left the mmio/pio bus was that
it would go lockless eventually, not "more lockful" ;)
Has that changed? I honestly haven't followed whats going on in the
io-bus code in a while.
-Greg
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (268 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists