From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:51878) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SgEEa-0008Go-SJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:05:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SgEEZ-0006Q3-BV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:05:36 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36835) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1SgEEZ-0006Pl-3Y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Jun 2012 08:05:35 -0400 Message-ID: <4FDDC4B6.5030202@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2012 14:51:18 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1339922831-23002-1-git-send-email-avi@redhat.com> <4FDDB981.8070309@web.de> <4FDDBFCD.3000608@redhat.com> <4FDDC3C8.5020205@web.de> In-Reply-To: <4FDDC3C8.5020205@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] kvm: align ram_size to page boundary List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , Michael Tokarev , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org On 06/17/2012 02:47 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>> I think this should rather go into generic code. >> >> To be honest, I put this in kvm-specific code because vl.c doesn't have >> TARGET_PAGE_ALIGN. Maybe we should have machine->page_size or >> machine->ram_alignment. >> >>> What sense does it make >>> to have partial pages with TCG? >> >> Why impose an artificial restriction? > > Beca... > >> >> (answer: to reduce differences among various accelerators) >> > > Oh, you found the answer. :) Reducing round-trips across the Internet. > > At least, it should be enforce for the x86 target, independent of the > accelerator. Yeah. So there's machine->page_size or machine->ram_alignment. Not sure which is best. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function