* Gregory Haskins ([email protected]) wrote: > What I am not clear on is how you would know to flag the address to > begin with.
That's why I mentioned pv_io_ops->iomap() earlier. Something I'd expect would get called on IORESOURCE_PVIO type. This isn't really transparent though (only virtio devices basically), kind of like you're saying below. > Here's a thought: "PV" drivers can flag the IO (e.g. virtio-pci knows it > would never be a real device). This means we route any io requests from > virtio-pci though pv_io_ops->mmio(), but not unflagged addresses. This > is not as slick as boosting *everyones* mmio speed as Avi's original > idea would have, but it is perhaps a good tradeoff between the entirely > new namespace created by my original dynhc() proposal and leaving them > all PF based. > > This way, its just like using my dynhc() proposal except the mmio-addr > is the substitute address-token (instead of the dynhc-vector). > Additionally, if you do not PV the kernel the IO_COND/pv_io_op is > ignored and it just slow-paths through the PF as it does today. Dynhc() > would be dependent on pv_ops. > > Thoughts? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
