Re: [announce] [patch] KVM paravirtualization for Linux

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



* Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote:

> Looks like a lot of complexity for very little gain.  I'm not sure 
> what the vmwrite cost is, cut it can't be that high compared to 
> vmexit.

while i disagree with characterising one extra parameter passed down 
plus one extra branch as 'a lot of complexity', i agree that making the 
flush a NOP on VMX is even better. (if it's possible without breaking 
future hardware) I guess you are right that the only true cost here is 
the vmwrite cost, and that there's no impact on CR3 flushing (because it 
happens unconditionally). Forget about this patch.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux