On Thu, Oct 24, 2019 at 10:24:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 24/10/19 21:38, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > only
> >  * its new index into the array is update.
> 
> s/update/tracked/?

Ya, tracked is better.  Waffled between updated and tracked, chose poorly :-)

>   Returns the changed memslot's
> >  * current index into the memslots array.
> >  */
> > static inline int kvm_memslot_move_backward(struct kvm_memslots *slots,
> >                                         struct kvm_memory_slot *memslot)
> > {
> >     struct kvm_memory_slot *mslots = slots->memslots;
> >     int i;
> > 
> >     if (WARN_ON_ONCE(slots->id_to_index[memslot->id] == -1) ||
> >         WARN_ON_ONCE(!slots->used_slots))
> >             return -1;
> > 
> >     for (i = slots->id_to_index[memslot->id]; i < slots->used_slots - 1; 
> > i++) {
> >             if (memslot->base_gfn > mslots[i + 1].base_gfn)
> >                     break;
> > 
> >             WARN_ON_ONCE(memslot->base_gfn == mslots[i + 1].base_gfn);
> > 
> >             /* Shift the next memslot forward one and update its index. */
> >             mslots[i] = mslots[i + 1];
> >             slots->id_to_index[mslots[i].id] = i;
> >     }
> >     return i;
> > }
> > 
> > /*
> >  * Move a changed memslot forwards in the array by shifting existing slots 
> > with
> >  * a lower GFN toward the back of the array.  Note, the changed memslot 
> > itself
> >  * is not preserved in the array, i.e. not swapped at this time, only its 
> > new
> >  * index into the array is updated
> 
> Same here?
> 
> >  * Note, slots are sorted from highest->lowest instead of lowest->highest 
> > for
> >  * historical reasons.
> 
> Not just that, the largest slot (with all RAM above 4GB) is also often
> at the highest address at least on x86.

Ah, increasing the odds of a quick hit on lookup...but only when using a
linear search.  The binary search starts in the middle, so that
optimization is also historical :-)

> But we could sort them by size now, so I agree to call these historical
> reasons.

That wouldn't work with the binary search though.

> The code itself is fine, thanks for the work on documenting it.
> 
> Paolo
> 
_______________________________________________
kvmarm mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm

Reply via email to