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

Avi Kivity
2011-06-19T13:02:22Z

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