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

[Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>]

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 :)

--
			Gleb.