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

Avi Kivity
2011-06-20T08:02:18Z

On 06/20/2011 10:21 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> 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 :)

Yes.

(you can write it, and Glauber can include it in the series)

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function