On 19/05/2017 01:28, Xu, Anthony wrote:
>> On 18/05/2017 23:48, Xu, Anthony wrote:
It should be called. Alternatively you could try adding a new function
to mark address_space_memory as a never-destroyed AddressSpace:
>>> This patch would do it, could you please submit this
> On 18/05/2017 23:48, Xu, Anthony wrote:
> >> It should be called. Alternatively you could try adding a new function
> >> to mark address_space_memory as a never-destroyed AddressSpace:
> >>
> > This patch would do it, could you please submit this patch?
>
> If you have tested it (together with
On 18/05/2017 23:48, Xu, Anthony wrote:
>> It should be called. Alternatively you could try adding a new function
>> to mark address_space_memory as a never-destroyed AddressSpace:
>>
> This patch would do it, could you please submit this patch?
If you have tested it (together with the change
> >>> -AddressSpace *as = address_space_init_shareable(cpu->memory,
> >>> -"cpu-memory");
> >>> +AddressSpace *as;
> >>> +if (cpu->memory == address_space_memory.root) {
> >>> +
On 17/05/2017 19:01, Xu, Anthony wrote:
>>> -AddressSpace *as = address_space_init_shareable(cpu->memory,
>>> -"cpu-memory");
>>> +AddressSpace *as;
>>> +if (cpu->memory == address_space_memory.root) {
>>> +
> > If cpu-memory address space is same as memory address space,
> > use memory address space for cpu-memory address space.
> >
> > any memory region change causeaddress space to rebuild PhysPageMap,
> > rebuilding PhysPageMap is very expensive.
> >
> > removing cpu-memory address space reduces
On Tue, 16 May 2017 15:15:23 -0700
Anthony Xu wrote:
> If cpu-memory address space is same as memory address space,
> use memory address space for cpu-memory address space.
>
> any memory region change causeaddress space to rebuild PhysPageMap,
> rebuilding PhysPageMap is