Shaohua Li wrote:
>> So write to a file, right? Yes, it can avoid use move to swap, and
>> should be feasible.
> Say you want to write guest pages out to file A of back store fs, in
> kvm->writepage(), we could do:
> 1. lower_page = grap_cache_page(file A's mapping)
> 2. file A's
2007/7/25, Shaohua Li <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
2007/7/24, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
> >
> > One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
> > if one module changes field of the
2007/7/24, Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Shaohua Li wrote:
> Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
>
> One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
> if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
> Should we
2007/7/24, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new
Shaohua Li wrote:
So write to a file, right? Yes, it can avoid use move to swap, and
should be feasible.
Say you want to write guest pages out to file A of back store fs, in
kvm-writepage(), we could do:
1. lower_page = grap_cache_page(file A's mapping)
2. file A's -prepare_write(lower_page)
2007/7/25, Shaohua Li [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2007/7/24, Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
Signed-off-by:
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
Signed-off-by:
Shaohua Li wrote:
>>>
>>>
>> You're not removing any shadows of the page, in case that page is a
>> guest page table. But I don't see anything wrong with it -- the page
>> won't change while it's in swap.
>>
> You are right. Should we?
>
I don't think so. It's just strange to
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 19:32 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Shaohua Li wrote:
> > Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped
> out.
> >
> > One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
> > if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
Signed-off-by:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li <[EMAIL
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
Signed-off-by: Shaohua Li [EMAIL
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should we introduce a new API to not share inode?
Signed-off-by:
On Mon, 2007-07-23 at 19:32 +0800, Avi Kivity wrote:
Shaohua Li wrote:
Make KVM guest pages be allocated dynamically and able to be swaped
out.
One issue: all inodes returned from anon_inode_getfd are shared,
if one module changes field of the inode, other moduels might break.
Should
Shaohua Li wrote:
You're not removing any shadows of the page, in case that page is a
guest page table. But I don't see anything wrong with it -- the page
won't change while it's in swap.
You are right. Should we?
I don't think so. It's just strange to have shadows for
16 matches
Mail list logo
