On Tue, 12 Feb 2019, 19:21 Andrii Anisov, <andrii.ani...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello Julien, > Hi, Sorry for the formatting. > On 07.02.19 12:59, Julien Grall wrote: > > In that case I would prefer if we don't keep the runstate mapped. > > Actually I'm going to see runstate update impact on the context switch > time. For that I will extend TBM with runstate setup. > I really do not like a bunch of `copy_to_guest()` done on each context > switch because of runstate. Please provide more meaningful arguments other than "I don't like it". I provided potential drawbacks on my previous e-mails that you haven't yet addressed. FWIW, Volodymyr had the same argument on OP-TEE and I requested to avoid the global mapping. I haven't seen any concern for performance devredation afterwards. Please feel free to come with numbers here. If you are against runstate mapping, I'd like to fit runstate into a page, > than access it directly from the hypervisor. This is not really a policy in Xen. If the guest cares about it, it can ensure that the runstate does not cross a page boundary. Cheers, > -- > Sincerely, > Andrii Anisov. >
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
