On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:37:38PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 03/19/2013 10:40 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> >
> > I misunderstood the benefit of your idea (now i got it: zap root
> > and flush TLB guarantees vcpus will refault). What i'd like to avoid is
> >
> > memset(cache, 0, sizeof(
On 03/19/2013 10:40 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> I misunderstood the benefit of your idea (now i got it: zap root
> and flush TLB guarantees vcpus will refault). What i'd like to avoid is
>
> memset(cache, 0, sizeof(*cache));
> kvm_mmu_init(kvm);
>
> I'd prefer normal operations on those data
On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:06:35AM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> On 03/19/2013 04:46 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> >> The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
> >> walk and zap all shadow pages one by
On 03/19/2013 04:46 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>> The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
>> walk and zap all shadow pages one by one, also it need to zap all guest
>> page's rmap and all shadow page's
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
> walk and zap all shadow pages one by one, also it need to zap all guest
> page's rmap and all shadow page's parent spte list. Particularly, things
> become wors
On 03/14/2013 09:35 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:07:06PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>> The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
>>> walk and zap all shadow pages one by on
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 10:07:06PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> > The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
> > walk and zap all shadow pages one by one, also it need to zap all guest
> > page's rmap a
On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:59:12PM +0800, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
> The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
> walk and zap all shadow pages one by one, also it need to zap all guest
> page's rmap and all shadow page's parent spte list. Particularly, things
> become wors
The current kvm_mmu_zap_all is really slow - it is holding mmu-lock to
walk and zap all shadow pages one by one, also it need to zap all guest
page's rmap and all shadow page's parent spte list. Particularly, things
become worse if guest uses more memory or vcpus. It is not good for
scalability.
S
9 matches
Mail list logo