Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 23 Oct 2006 03:42:18 -0400 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/7] KVM: Kernel-based Virtual Machine |
| |
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/
| |