From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [patch 3/5] KVM: hypercall batching (v2) Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 17:52:25 +0200 Message-ID: <47BD9E39.9050204@qumranet.com> References: <20080220194720.750258362@harmony.lab.boston.redhat.com> <20080220195019.708528773@harmony.lab.boston.redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net To: Marcelo Tosatti Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20080220195019.708528773@harmony.lab.boston.redhat.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Batch pte updates and tlb flushes in lazy MMU mode. > > v1->v2: > - report individual hypercall error code, have multicall return number of > processed entries. > - cover entire multicall duration with slots_lock instead of > acquiring/reacquiring. > But not all hypercalls want slots_lock. I suggested earlier switching to a "multiple mmu operation" hypercall (and not have individual mmu hypercalls). What do think about that? I think hypercalls will be quite diverse in the future and batching them will not make sense always. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/