On 06/20/2011 10:21 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 04:02:22PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/19/2011 03:59 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >On Sun, Jun 19, 2011 at 03:35:58PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 06/15/2011 12:09 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >> >> > >> >> Actually, I'd expect most read/writes to benefit from caching, no? > >> >> So why don't we just rename kvm_write_guest_cached() to > >> >> kvm_write_guest(), and the few places - if any - that need to force > >> >> transversing of the gfn mappings, get renamed to > >> >> kvm_write_guest_uncached ? > >> >> > >> >Good idea. I do not see any places where kvm_write_guest_uncached is > >> >needed from a brief look. Avi? > >> > > >> > >> kvm_write_guest_cached() needs something to supply the cache, and > >> needs recurring writes to the same location. Neither of these are > >> common (for example, instruction emulation doesn't have either). > >> > >Correct. Missed that. So what about changing steal time to use > >kvm_write_guest_cached()? > > Makes sense, definitely. Want to post read_guest_cached() as well? > Glauber can you write read_guest_cached() as part of your series (should be trivial), or do you want me to do it? I do not have a code to test it with though :)
Yes. (you can write it, and Glauber can include it in the series) -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
