Hello,
On Mon, Aug 06, 2018 at 01:44:49PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 06/08/2018 09:51, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 07/27/2018 11:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> We are currently cutting hva_to_pfn_fast short if we do not want an
> >> immediate exit, which is represented by !async
On 06/08/2018 09:51, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
>
> On 07/27/2018 11:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> We are currently cutting hva_to_pfn_fast short if we do not want an
>> immediate exit, which is represented by !async && !atomic. However,
>> this is unnecessary, and __get_user_pages_fast is *much*
On 07/27/2018 11:46 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
We are currently cutting hva_to_pfn_fast short if we do not want an
immediate exit, which is represented by !async && !atomic. However,
this is unnecessary, and __get_user_pages_fast is *much* faster
because the regular get_user_pages takes pmd_loc
On 27.07.2018 17:46, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> We are currently cutting hva_to_pfn_fast short if we do not want an
> immediate exit, which is represented by !async && !atomic. However,
> this is unnecessary, and __get_user_pages_fast is *much* faster
> because the regular get_user_pages takes pmd_loc
We are currently cutting hva_to_pfn_fast short if we do not want an
immediate exit, which is represented by !async && !atomic. However,
this is unnecessary, and __get_user_pages_fast is *much* faster
because the regular get_user_pages takes pmd_lock/pte_lock.
In fact, when many CPUs take a nested
5 matches
Mail list logo