Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 20 Jun 2011 09:42:31 -0300 | From | Glauber Costa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 3/7] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation |
| |
On 06/20/2011 05:02 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > 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) > Write it, handle me the patch, I'll include it and test it.
| |