From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/3] Split up pv-ops Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:00:32 +0200 Message-ID: <4B17D290.9040507@redhat.com> References: <1258503192-14246-1-git-send-email-agraf@suse.de> <4B17D0C7.1020805@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm list , Nick Piggin , Glauber Costa , virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org, rusty@rustcorp.com.au To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43789 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751474AbZLCPAh (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 10:00:37 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4B17D0C7.1020805@suse.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/03/2009 04:52 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > Alexander Graf wrote: > >> Paravirt ops is currently only capable of either replacing a lot of Linux >> internal code or none at all. The are users that don't need all of the >> possibilities pv-ops delivers though. >> >> On KVM for example we're perfectly fine not using the PV MMU, thus not >> touching any MMU code. That way we don't have to improve pv-ops to become >> fast, we just don't compile the MMU parts in! >> >> This patchset splits pv-ops into several smaller config options split by >> feature category and then converts the KVM pv-ops code to use only the >> bits that are required, lowering overhead. >> >> > So has this ended up in some tree yet? > Don't think so. I suggest you copy lkml and Ingo. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function