On 12/03/2011 06:37 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
> > That's true. But some applications do require low latency, and the
> > current code can impose a lot of time with the mmu spinlock held.
> >
> > The total amount of work actually increases slightly, from O(N) to O(N
> > log
Avi Kivity wrote:
> That's true. But some applications do require low latency, and the
> current code can impose a lot of time with the mmu spinlock held.
>
> The total amount of work actually increases slightly, from O(N) to O(N
> log N), but since the tree is so wide, the overhead is small.
>
On 11/30/2011 07:15 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
> (2011/11/30 14:02), Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
>
>> IIUC, even though O(1) is O(1) at the timing of GET DIRTY LOG, it
>> needs O(N) write
>> protections with respect to the total number of dirty pages:
>> distributed, but
>> actually each page fault, w
(2011/11/30 14:02), Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
IIUC, even though O(1) is O(1) at the timing of GET DIRTY LOG, it needs O(N)
write
protections with respect to the total number of dirty pages: distributed, but
actually each page fault, which should be logged, does some write protection?
Sorry, was
CCing qemu devel, Juan,
(2011/11/29 23:03), Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/29/2011 02:01 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/29/2011 01:56 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
On 11/29/2011 07:20 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
We used to have a bitmap in a shadow page with a bit set for every slot
pointed to by the page. If
Adding qemu-devel to Cc.
(2011/11/14 21:39), Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/14/2011 12:56 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
(2011/11/14 19:25), Avi Kivity wrote:
On 11/14/2011 11:20 AM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote:
This is a revised version of my previous work. I hope that
the patches are more self explanator
