Xiao,
Takuya Yoshikawa <[email protected]> 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 kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
