On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 05:31:48PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 17/12/19 16:38, Peter Xu wrote: > > There's still time to persuade me to going back to it. :) > > > > (Though, yes I still like current solution... if we can get rid of the > > only kvmgt ugliness, we can even throw away the per-vm ring with its > > "extra" 4k page. Then I suppose it'll be even harder to persuade me :) > > Actually that's what convinced me in the first place, so let's > absolutely get rid of both the per-VM ring and the union. Kevin and > Alex have answered and everybody seems to agree. Yeah that'd be perfect. However I just noticed something... Note that we still didn't read into non-x86 archs, I think it's the same question as when I asked whether we can unify the kvm[_vcpu]_write() interfaces and you'd like me to read the non-x86 archs - I think it's time I read them, because it's still possible that non-x86 archs will still need the per-vm ring... then that could be another problem if we want to at last spread the dirty ring idea outside of x86. -- Peter Xu
