Re: [PATCH 3/7] KVM-HV: KVM Steal time implementation

[Avi Kivity]

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?

--
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/