On 20.05.2022 14:37, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 08:24:48AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 20.05.2022 01:22, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
>>> It is well known that mapping and unmapping grants is expensive, which
>>> is why blkback has persistent grants. Could this cost be mi
On Fri, May 20, 2022 at 08:24:48AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> On 20.05.2022 01:22, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> > It is well known that mapping and unmapping grants is expensive, which
> > is why blkback has persistent grants. Could this cost be mitigated by
> > batching, and if it was, would it a
On 20.05.2022 01:22, Demi Marie Obenour wrote:
> It is well known that mapping and unmapping grants is expensive, which
> is why blkback has persistent grants. Could this cost be mitigated by
> batching, and if it was, would it affect the tradeoff of memcpy() vs
> grant table operations?
Which ba
It is well known that mapping and unmapping grants is expensive, which
is why blkback has persistent grants. Could this cost be mitigated by
batching, and if it was, would it affect the tradeoff of memcpy() vs
grant table operations?
Alternatively, would there be any interest in an “unsafe” mode
