Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932167Ab1BWJ2U (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:28:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33034 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932142Ab1BWJ2S (ORCPT ); Wed, 23 Feb 2011 04:28:18 -0500 Message-ID: <4D64D32A.9090804@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 11:28:10 +0200 From: Avi Kivity User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.13) Gecko/20101209 Fedora/3.1.7-0.35.b3pre.fc14 Lightning/1.0b3pre Thunderbird/3.1.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Xiao Guangrong CC: Marcelo Tosatti , LKML , KVM Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/7] KVM: MMU: cache guest page number to guest frame number References: <4D636EF8.60800@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D6370E8.6080008@cn.fujitsu.com> <4D63C8F9.1020708@redhat.com> <4D646517.8030702@cn.fujitsu.com> In-Reply-To: <4D646517.8030702@cn.fujitsu.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1589 Lines: 33 On 02/23/2011 03:38 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > On 02/22/2011 10:32 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 02/22/2011 10:16 AM, Xiao Guangrong wrote: > >> Cache guest page number to guest frame number to avoid walk guest page table > >> frequently, the 'vtlb' idea is from Xen. > >> > >> Note: > >> we can't use vtlb in ept guests since the guest tlb invalid operation is not > >> intercept(reload CR3, invlpg), also can't used in L2 nnpt guest for the same > >> reason, but we can used it to cache L1's npt page table. > >> > > > > I'm not so hot about introducing a new mechanism strictly for older hosts... EPT exists in three generations of Intel processors now (Sandy Bridge, Westmere, and Nehalem), and NPT is significantly older. > > > > Um...so, do we should stop the new features for softmmu, only bug fix is welcome? :-) No. There is always a tradeoff between features and complexity. What I'm saying is that I want to shift the tradeoff, for older processors, towards reducing complexity. An improvement that is very simple, or gives very large gains, will be accepted. A complex improvement that gives small gains may be rejected (but if it's for newer processors, it may be accepted). It's a way for the maintainers to manage the ever growing complexity. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function -- 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/