Re: [PATCH 00/13] KVM: MMU: fast page fault

[Takuya Yoshikawa]

Xiao,

Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> > What is your really want to say but i missed?
> 
> How to improve and what we should pay for that.
> 
> Note that I am not objecting to O(1) itself.
> 

I forgot to say one important thing -- I might give you wrong impression.

I am perfectly fine with your lock-less work.  It is really nice!

The reason I say much about O(1) is that O(1) and rmap based
GET_DIRTY_LOG have fundamentally different characteristics.

I am thinking really seriously how to make dirty page tracking work
well with QEMU in the future.

For example, I am thinking about multi-threaded and fine-grained
GET_DIRTY_LOG.

If we use rmap based GET_DIRTY_LOG, we can restrict write protection to
only a selected area of one guest memory slot.

So we may be able to make each thread process dirty pages independently
from other threads by calling GET_DIRTY_LOG for its own area.

But I know that O(1) has its own good point.
So please wait a bit.  I will write up what I am thinking or send patches.

Anyway, I am looking forward to your lock-less work!
It will improve the current GET_DIRTY_LOG performance.

Thanks,
	Takuya
--
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/