From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@qumranet.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/13] KVM: kvm data structures
Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 00:55:45 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.9.5
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <4540EE2B.9020606@qumranet.com> <20061026172456.91391A0209@cleopatra.q>
In-Reply-To: <20061026172456.91391A0209@cleopatra.q>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200610270055.45560.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 999
Lines: 24

On Thursday 26 October 2006 19:24, Avi Kivity wrote:
> +struct kvm {
> +       spinlock_t lock; /* protects everything except vcpus */
> +       int nmemslots;
> +       struct kvm_memory_slot memslots[KVM_MEMORY_SLOTS];
> +       struct list_head active_mmu_pages;
> +       struct kvm_vcpu vcpus[KVM_MAX_VCPUS];
> +       int memory_config_version;
> +       int busy;
> +};

Assuming that you move to the host-user == guest-real memory
model, will this data structure still be needed? It would
be really nice if a guest could simply consist of a number
of vcpu structures that happen to be used from threads in the
same process address space, but I find it hard to tell if
that is realistic.

	Arnd <><
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/