>>> On 21.02.18 at 19:24, <dunl...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 6, 2017 at 11:02 AM, Alexandru Isaila
> <aisa...@bitdefender.com> wrote:
>> This patch adds the hvm_save_one_cpu_ctxt() function.
>> It optimizes by only pausing the vcpu on all HVMSR_PER_VCPU save
>> callbacks where only data for one VCPU is required.
> 
> Sorry it's taken so long to get back to you on this one.
> 
> So first of all, a big issue with this patch in general is that
> there's way too much code duplication.  Duplicating the code in every
> case will not only increase HV code size and decrease cache
> effectiveness, it will also increase the likelihood of subtle bugs
> creeping in when the two copies don't match up.  If you were going to
> do it this way I think you'd basically have to make a *_save_*_one()
> function for each callback.
> 
> The only other option would be to pass a cpumask instead, and set
> either a single bit or all the bits; but that seems a bit wasteful.
> (Jan, Andy -- if you don't like this solution, now is the time to say
> so.)

First of all it would need to be a vcpumask, and then it wouldn't
scale well (at least as soon as the maximum number of HVM vCPU-s
isn't limited to as little as 128 anymore, which Intel folks are
already trying to rectify, albeit sadly without first addressing all
the issues with higher vCPU counts).

Jan


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel

Reply via email to