Hollis Blanchard wrote: > 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. >
No, it isn't, but having a KVM_ARCH_HAS_VCPU_ALLOC isn't either. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
