Anthony Liguori wrote: >>> >>> >> If we're going to mod the kernel, how about a "mmap this part of their >> address >> space" and having the kernel keep the mappings in sync. But I think that if >> we want to get speed, we should probably be doing the copy between address >> spaces in-kernel so we can do lightweight exits. >> >> > > I don't think lightweight exits help the situation very much. The > difference between a light weight and heavy weight exit is only 3-4k > cycles or so. >
On what host cpu? IIRC the difference was bigger on Intel (and in relative terms, set to increase). > in-kernel doesn't make the situation much easier. You have to map pages > in from a different task. It's a lot easier if you have both guest > mapped in userspace. > The kernel already has everything mapped (kmap_atomic() is an addition on x86_64). -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
