From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Subject: vram_dirty vs. shadow paging dirty tracking
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 14:32:56 -0500
Message-ID: <45F6FC68.3040207@us.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
To: Ian Pratt <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk>, xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

When thinking about multithreading the device model, it occurred to me 
that it's a little odd that we're doing a memcmp to determine which 
portions of the VRAM has changed.  Couldn't we just use dirty page 
tracking in the shadow paging code?  That should significantly lower the 
overhead of this plus I believe the infrastructure is already mostly 
there in the shadow2 code.

Is this a sane idea?

Regards,

Anthony Liguori