Carsten Otte wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: >> I don't really see a big difference between what we have now (sparse >> userspace, sparse guest) and Izik's idea (contiguous userspace, >> sparse guest). In both cases you need something like memory slots to >> describe the different sections. > We don't on s390: we receive a page fault by the guest once it > accesses a sparse hole in its address space. We check the user space's > VMA and either page it in or submit an addressing exception to the guest.
I was talking about x86. On x86, you need contiguous userspace, contiguous guest, but again, what's the problem with one memory slot? > >> Moreover, on x86 you may want different properties for different >> sections (4K pages for the framebuffer, large pages for main memory), >> so you can't allocate memory in one big chunk. > That's right. On s390, we can live with whatever properties a section > has with regard to page size, backing device and such. So memory may > well come to live by different alloations, and different allocation > methods. All we need is a permanent contiguous mapping of the guest > physical addresses to host user addresses. So Izik's idea would work > for us even if we have different sections. So would the current memory slot thing, no? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
