![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
Alan Cox wrote:
> Ar Sul, 2006-10-22 am 10:37 +0200, ysgrifennodd Avi Kivity:
>
>> I like this. Since we plan to support multiple vcpus per vm, the fs
>> structure might look like:
>>
>
> Three times the syscall overhead is bad for an emulation very bad
Why? You would usually just call kvm_run(). get/set regs are not needed
normally.
> for an
> emulation of a CPU whose virtualisation is half baked.
>
>
Blood rare. The thing can't even virtualize the first instruction executed.
>> It's certainly a lot more code though, and requires new syscalls. Since
>> this is a little esoteric does it warrant new syscalls?
>>
>
> I think not - ioctl exists to avoid adding a billion esoteric one user
> syscalls. The idea of a VFS sysfs type view of the running vm is great
> for tools however so I wouldn't throw it out entirely or see it as ioctl
> versus fs.
>
I still want a separate object per vcpu:
kvm_fd = open("/dev/kvm")
for (i = 0; i < n; ++i)
vcpu_fds[i] = ioctl(kvm_fd, KVM_CREATE_VCPU, i)
so the refcounting doesn't bounce cachelines too much. In effect it's a
mini filesystem.
--
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@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ||||||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-23 09:45 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||