Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Avi Kivity <[email protected]> wrote:
Won't that increase task_struct (16 bytes on 64-bit) unnecessarily?
The function pointers are common to all virtual machines.
well, this function pointer could then be reused by other virtual
machines as well, couldnt it?
I don't get this. If we add a couple of members to task_struct, it
can't be reused. The values will be the same across all tasks, but
the memory will be gone (including tasks which aren't virtual
machines).
i mean, the function pointer is set by KVM, but it could be set to a
different value by other hypervisors.
but ... no strong feelings either way, your patch is certainly fine.
Acked-by: Ingo Molnar <[email protected]>
Ingo
How do you feel about some variant of this going into 2.6.23-rc1? I
initially thought of this as a 2.6.24 thing, but as it now looks solid,
maybe we can hurry things along.
If Shaohua ports his spinlock->mutex convertion to the sched branch, we
get some real benefits:
- reduced latencies for desktop users
- less kvm patches to carry in -rt (maybe none?)
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
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]
