On Fri, Feb 08, 2013 at 12:07:36AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 03:52:24PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > Its not a bad idea to have a new KVM_REQ_ bit for PIR processing (just
> > > as the current patches do).
> > Without the numbers I do not see why.
>
> KVM_REQ_EVENT already means... counting... many things. Its a well
Exactly my point. KVM_REQ_EVENT means many things, all of them event
injection related. It can be split may be to 2/3 smaller request, but
it will complicate the code and why would we do that without actually
able to show performance improvements that split provides?
> defined request, to sync PIR->VIRR, don't see your point about
> performance.
And it is just one more things that needs to be done during event
injection. Without providing a good reason no need to handle it
specially. Performance is convincing enough reason, but I what to
see numbers.
--
Gleb.
--
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
