From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Npby0-0008US-0e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:33:56 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52165 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Npbxy-0008UK-Gu
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:33:54 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim
	4.60) (envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Npbxx-0005Uw-R8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:33:54 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46327)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1Npbxx-0005Uq-Fo
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Mar 2010 01:33:53 -0500
Message-ID: <4B988EBB.1060007@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 08:33:31 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Inter-VM shared memory PCI device
References: <1267833161-25267-1-git-send-email-cam@cs.ualberta.ca>
	<4B97D349.1030105@codemonkey.ws> <4B97D752.3080700@redhat.com>
	<201003101741.47300.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <201003101741.47300.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Cam Macdonell <cam@cs.ualberta.ca>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On 03/10/2010 07:41 PM, Paul Brook wrote:
>>> You're much better off using a bulk-data transfer API that relaxes
>>> coherency requirements.  IOW, shared memory doesn't make sense for TCG
>>>        
>> Rather, tcg doesn't make sense for shared memory smp.  But we knew that
>> already.
>>      
> In think TCG SMP is a hard, but soluble problem, especially when you're
> running guests used to coping with NUMA.
>    

Do you mean by using a per-cpu tlb?  These kind of solutions are 
generally slow, but tcg's slowness may mask this out.

> TCG interacting with third parties via shared memory is probably never going
> to make sense.
>    

The third party in this case is qemu.

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