Re: [PATCH]0/2 Patches to furthure split kvm_init

[Hollis Blanchard <hollisb-r/Jw6+rmf7HQT0dZR+AlfA@public.gmane.org>]

On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:50 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Carsten Otte wrote:
> > Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> But you do need the vcpu cache, right?
> > I think about organizing our SIE control blocks in it, just like vmx
> > and svm do with their hardware structures backing a vcpu state.
> > They're 512 bytes in size, and need to start on a 512-byte boundary.
> > Sorry about my previous answer, I was confused by vcpu_cache /
> > vcpu_decache for x86. It's friday...
> 
> Ah, so you even need the alignment (which happen to be exactly the x86
> fpu alignment).
> 
> So we have two archs needing special allocation, and two archs using a
> common allocator.

I think it's clear that this is an area that is likely to be very
architecture-specific, and I don't think that duplicating
kmem_cache_create() for each architecture is a big deal at all.

In fact the x86 split today is already pretty weird, since the code that
actually *uses* the cache (and the only code that knows what size the
vcpu actually is!), isn't the code creating it.

-- 
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center


-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell.  From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream.  Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4