Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhang, Xiantao wrote:
>> Avi Kivity wrote:
>>
>>> Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Xiantao,
>>>> it looks good to me to move kvm_vcpu_cache out to the x86 specific
>>>> code
>>>>
>>> Why is that? Do other archs not want kvm_vcpu_cache, or is it just
>>> the alignment?
>>>
>> At lease we didn't fall across the similar requirements about such
>> alignment issues in IA64.
>>
>
> What I mean is, other archs do require kvm_vcpu_cache (without the
> alignment), so why move the code? Just make the alignment arch
> dependent with a #define.
I think IA64 TOTALLY doen't need this logic, so do the move:)
> Oh, and since the code is written as
>
>> - /* A kmem cache lets us meet the alignment requirements of
>> fx_save. */
>> - kvm_vcpu_cache = kmem_cache_create("kvm_vcpu", vcpu_size,
>> - __alignof__(struct kvm_vcpu),
>> - 0, NULL);
>> - if (!kvm_vcpu_cache) {
>
> If other archs don't require special alignment for kvm_vcpu,
> __alignof__(struct kvm_vcpu) will return the natural alignment for
> that arch, and no memory will be wasted.
We use a very different method to allocate kvm_vcpu memory in IA64
side.
So we have to set vcpu_size to zero. But if vcpu_size is set to zero,
kmem_cache_create returns error, and this logic can't handle this error.
Finally, make the kvm_init aborted. Otherwise, it wastes memory.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SF.Net email is sponsored by: The Future of Linux Business White Paper
from Novell. From the desktop to the data center, Linux is going
mainstream. Let it simplify your IT future.
http://altfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/8857-50307-18918-4
_______________________________________________
kvm-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
