On Fri, 2007-11-30 at 16:50 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Carsten Otte wrote: > > Avi Kivity wrote: > >> But you do need the vcpu cache, right? > > I think about organizing our SIE control blocks in it, just like vmx > > and svm do with their hardware structures backing a vcpu state. > > They're 512 bytes in size, and need to start on a 512-byte boundary. > > Sorry about my previous answer, I was confused by vcpu_cache / > > vcpu_decache for x86. It's friday... > > Ah, so you even need the alignment (which happen to be exactly the x86 > fpu alignment). > > So we have two archs needing special allocation, and two archs using a > common allocator.
I think it's clear that this is an area that is likely to be very architecture-specific, and I don't think that duplicating kmem_cache_create() for each architecture is a big deal at all. In fact the x86 split today is already pretty weird, since the code that actually *uses* the cache (and the only code that knows what size the vcpu actually is!), isn't the code creating it. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future. http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4 _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
