[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120413232528.c5ddbddb3cc0870d6e85a332@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2012 23:25:28 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong.eric@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, KVM <kvm@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/13] KVM: MMU: fast page fault
Xiao,
Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com> wrote:
> > What is your really want to say but i missed?
>
> How to improve and what we should pay for that.
>
> Note that I am not objecting to O(1) itself.
>
I forgot to say one important thing -- I might give you wrong impression.
I am perfectly fine with your lock-less work. It is really nice!
The reason I say much about O(1) is that O(1) and rmap based
GET_DIRTY_LOG have fundamentally different characteristics.
I am thinking really seriously how to make dirty page tracking work
well with QEMU in the future.
For example, I am thinking about multi-threaded and fine-grained
GET_DIRTY_LOG.
If we use rmap based GET_DIRTY_LOG, we can restrict write protection to
only a selected area of one guest memory slot.
So we may be able to make each thread process dirty pages independently
from other threads by calling GET_DIRTY_LOG for its own area.
But I know that O(1) has its own good point.
So please wait a bit. I will write up what I am thinking or send patches.
Anyway, I am looking forward to your lock-less work!
It will improve the current GET_DIRTY_LOG performance.
Thanks,
Takuya
--
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