Re: [kvm-ppc-devel] RFC/patch portability: split kvm_vm_ioctl v2

Izik Eidus
2007-10-26T19:05:41Z

Carsten Otte wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
>
>> Izik's idea (as I understand it) is to have one ioctl registering all of
>> RAM, and then multiple "configure slot" ioctls that tell the kernel how
>> to divide that area into the guest physical address space. That seems
>> more awkward to me and I don't seem a benefit.
>>
> I think we need to wait for Izik to explain more. In this
> interpretation it really does'nt make sense for s390 as well. My
> interpretation of Izik's idea was just like memory slots are today.
> Avi clarified my misunderstanding of memory slots on x86.
>
my idea was to let kvm register userspace memory that will hold the
guest memory,
and then much like qemu do with its cpu_register_physical_memory
function, run ioctls
that will tell the kernel how to map this memory,
what i wanted to achieved is making the memory allocation code shared,
but still
let each arch to use any kind of "arch depended" mapping rules it want,
but after reading the last posts it seems like you can use the normal
memslots, so it is kind of useless i guess and i will
give up the idea of writing patch to make this, unless you still have
problem with the memslots?

thanks.

> so long,
> Carsten
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc.
> Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop.
> Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser.
> Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/
> _______________________________________________
> kvm-devel mailing list
> kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel