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 ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
