Avi Kivity wrote: > Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> Zhang, Xiantao wrote: >>> >>>> Avi Kivity wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Xiantao, >>>>>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 >>>>>> specific code >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it >>>>> just the alignment? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> At lease we didn't fall across the similar requirements about such >>>> alignment issues in IA64. >>>> >>>> >>> What I mean is, other archs do require kvm_vcpu_cache (without the >>> alignment), so why move the code? Just make the alignment arch >>> dependent with a #define. >>> >> >> I think IA64 TOTALLY doen't need this logic, so do the move:) >> >> > > Ah, I see. It isn't just the alignment. How do you allocate > kvm_vcpu, then?
For evevy vm, we allocate a big chunk of memory for structure allocation. For vcpu, it should be always 64k aligned through our allocation mechanism. So, we don't care about its aligment issue :) > What about s390 and powerpc? I imagine they don't have an alignment > issue, but do they have a totally unique way of allocating vcpus as > well? > > Maybe we should just #ifndef CONFIG_IA64 (or #ifdef > CONFIG_HAVE_SPECIAL_VCPU_ALLOC) this bit instead of duplicating it for > s390 and ppc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
