[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4DFDF35E.8030504@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 16:02:22 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Gleb Natapov <gleb@...hat.com>
CC: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Rik van Riel <riel@...hat.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Anthony Liguori <aliguori@...ibm.com>,
Eric B Munson <emunson@...bm.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/7] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation
On 06/19/2011 03:59 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 03:35:58PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > On 06/15/2011 12:09 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > >>
> > >> Actually, I'd expect most read/writes to benefit from caching, no?
> > >> So why don't we just rename kvm_write_guest_cached() to
> > >> kvm_write_guest(), and the few places - if any - that need to force
> > >> transversing of the gfn mappings, get renamed to
> > >> kvm_write_guest_uncached ?
> > >>
> > >Good idea. I do not see any places where kvm_write_guest_uncached is
> > >needed from a brief look. Avi?
> > >
> >
> > kvm_write_guest_cached() needs something to supply the cache, and
> > needs recurring writes to the same location. Neither of these are
> > common (for example, instruction emulation doesn't have either).
> >
> Correct. Missed that. So what about changing steal time to use
> kvm_write_guest_cached()?
Makes sense, definitely. Want to post read_guest_cached() as well?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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