On 01/18/2010 06:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 06:04:40PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/18/2010 05:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
cpu_register_physical_memory_offset already is O(memory size) btw.
Right, but we'd like to replace it with a range
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 06:04:40PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/18/2010 05:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>> cpu_register_physical_memory_offset already is O(memory size) btw.
>>
>
> Right, but we'd like to replace it with a range API.
So, when we do the implementation of notifiers ca
On 01/18/2010 05:45 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
cpu_register_physical_memory_offset already is O(memory size) btw.
Right, but we'd like to replace it with a range API.
Maybe we mandate clients be registered at init-time?
This might be tricky - vhost currently only regis
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/18/2010 04:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>
The point is that clients can be registered at any point.
A client that registered when memory is present needs to
be notified about it.
>>
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 04:52:10PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/18/2010 04:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>
>>
The point is that clients can be registered at any point.
A client that registered when memory is present needs to
be notified about it.
>>
On 01/18/2010 04:44 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
The point is that clients can be registered at any point.
A client that registered when memory is present needs to
be notified about it.
It looks very expensive.
Shouldn't be hard to optimize ...
It's O(memory size),
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:58:51PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/18/2010 03:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/04/2010 09:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>>>
This adds notifiers for phys memory changes: a s
On 01/18/2010 03:52 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/04/2010 09:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This adds notifiers for phys memory changes: a set of callbacks that
vhost can register and update kernel accordingly. Down
On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 03:02:59PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 01/04/2010 09:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> This adds notifiers for phys memory changes: a set of callbacks that
>> vhost can register and update kernel accordingly. Down the road, kvm
>> code can be switched to use these as we
On 01/04/2010 09:49 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
This adds notifiers for phys memory changes: a set of callbacks that
vhost can register and update kernel accordingly. Down the road, kvm
code can be switched to use these as well, instead of calling kvm code
directly from exec.c as is done now.
This adds notifiers for phys memory changes: a set of callbacks that
vhost can register and update kernel accordingly. Down the road, kvm
code can be switched to use these as well, instead of calling kvm code
directly from exec.c as is done now.
Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin
---
cpu-common.
11 matches
Mail list logo