Izik,
On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 03:53:44PM +0200, Izik Eidus wrote:
> >From f94dcd1ccabbcdb51ed7c37c5f58f00a5c1b7eec Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Izik Eidus <iei...@redhat.com>
> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:49:41 +0200
> Subject: [PATCH] RFC: alias rework
>
> This patch remove the old way of aliasing inside kvm
> and move into using aliasing with the same virtual addresses
>
> This patch is really just early RFC just to know if you guys
> like this direction, and I need to clean some parts of it
> and test it more before I feel it ready to be merged...
>
> Comments are more than welcome.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Signed-off-by: Izik Eidus <iei...@redhat.com>
> ---
> arch/ia64/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/ia64/kvm/kvm-ia64.c | 5 --
> arch/powerpc/kvm/powerpc.c | 5 --
> arch/s390/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 1 +
> arch/s390/kvm/kvm-s390.c | 5 --
> arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h | 19 ------
> arch/x86/include/asm/vmx.h | 6 +-
> arch/x86/kvm/mmu.c | 19 ++-----
> arch/x86/kvm/x86.c | 114 +++++++++++--------------------------
> include/linux/kvm_host.h | 11 +--
> virt/kvm/kvm_main.c | 80 +++++++++++++++++++-------
> 11 files changed, 107 insertions(+), 159 deletions(-)
>
> @@ -2661,7 +2611,18 @@ int kvm_vm_ioctl_get_dirty_log(struct kvm *kvm,
> struct kvm_memslots *slots, *old_slots;
>
> spin_lock(&kvm->mmu_lock);
> + for (i = KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS; i < KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS +
> + KVM_ALIAS_SLOTS; ++i) {
The plan is to kill KVM_ALIAS_SLOTS (aliases will share the 32 mem
slots), right?
> +#ifdef CONFIG_X86
> +
> +static void update_alias_slots(struct kvm *kvm, struct kvm_memory_slot *slot)
> +{
> + int i;
> +
> + for (i = KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS; i < KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS + KVM_ALIAS_SLOTS;
> + ++i) {
> + struct kvm_memory_slot *alias_memslot =
> + &kvm->memslots->memslots[i];
> + unsigned long size = slot->npages << PAGE_SHIFT;
> +
> + if (alias_memslot->real_base_gfn >= slot->base_gfn &&
> + alias_memslot->real_base_gfn < slot->base_gfn + size) {
> + if (slot->dirty_bitmap) {
> + unsigned long bitmap_addr;
> + unsigned long dirty_offset;
> + unsigned long offset_addr =
> + (alias_memslot->real_base_gfn -
> + slot->base_gfn) << PAGE_SHIFT;
> + alias_memslot->userspace_addr =
> + slot->userspace_addr + offset_addr;
> +
> + dirty_offset =
> + ALIGN(offset_addr, BITS_PER_LONG) / 8;
> + bitmap_addr = (unsigned long)
> slot->dirty_bitmap;
> + bitmap_addr += dirty_offset;
> + alias_memslot->dirty_bitmap = (unsigned long
> *)bitmap_addr;
> + alias_memslot->base_gfn =
> alias_memslot->real_base_gfn;
> + alias_memslot->npages =
> alias_memslot->real_npages;
> + } else if (!slot->rmap) {
> + alias_memslot->base_gfn = 0;
> + alias_memslot->npages = 0;
> + }
> + }
> + }
> +}
> +
> +#endif
Can't see why is this needed. What is the problem with nuking "child"
aliases when deleting a real memslot?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
