Re: [announce] [patch] KVM paravirtualization for Linux

[Ingo Molnar]

* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Looks like a lot of complexity for very little gain.  I'm not sure 
> what the vmwrite cost is, cut it can't be that high compared to 
> vmexit.

while i disagree with characterising one extra parameter passed down 
plus one extra branch as 'a lot of complexity', i agree that making the 
flush a NOP on VMX is even better. (if it's possible without breaking 
future hardware) I guess you are right that the only true cost here is 
the vmwrite cost, and that there's no impact on CR3 flushing (because it 
happens unconditionally). Forget about this patch.

	Ingo
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/