On 01.12.14 22:00, Lluís Vilanova wrote: > Mark Burton writes: > >> All - first a huge thanks for those who have contributed, and those who have >> expressed an interest in helping out. > >> One issue I’d like to see more opinions on is the question of a cache per >> core, >> or a shared cache. >> I have heard anecdotal evidence that a shared cache gives a major performance >> benefit…. >> Does anybody have anything more concrete? >> (of course we will get numbers in the end if we implement the hybrid scheme >> as >> suggested in the wiki - but I’d still appreciate any feedback). > > I think it makes sense to have a per-core pointer to a qom TCGCacheClass. That > can then have its own methods for working with updates, making it much simpler > to work with different implementations, like completely avoiding locks > (per-cpu > cache) or a hybrid approach like the one described in the wiki.
I don't think you want to have indirect function calls in the fast path ;). Alex
