Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:02:18 +0300 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation |
| |
On 06/20/2011 10:21 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 04:02:22PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > 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? > > > Glauber can you write read_guest_cached() as part of your series (should > be trivial), or do you want me to do it? I do not have a code to test it > with though :)
Yes.
(you can write it, and Glauber can include it in the series)
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
| |