[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20120417213748.f3c4ae8d0056676fd33a47c5@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:37:48 +0900
From: Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@...il.com>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
Cc: Xiao Guangrong <xiaoguangrong@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
kvm-ppc@...r.kernel.org, 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
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:51:40 +0300
Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com> wrote:
> That's true with the write protect everything approach we use now. But
> it's not true with range-based write protection, where you issue
> GET_DIRTY_LOG on a range of pages and only need to re-write-protect them.
>
> (the motivation for that is to decrease the time between GET_DIRTY_LOG
> and sending the page; as the time increases, the chances that the page
> got re-dirtied go up).
Thank you for explaining this.
I was planning to give the userspace more freedom.
Since there are many known algorithms to predict hot memory pages,
the userspace will be able to tune the frequency of GET_DIRTY_LOG for such
parts not to get too many faults repeatedly, if we can restrict the range
of pages to protect.
This is the fine-grained control.
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