On Mon, Nov 8, 2021 at 1:37 PM Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 11/8/21 20:57, David Matlack wrote: > >> I'm not super > >> interested in adding eager page splitting for the older methods (clear > >> on KVM_GET_DIRTY_LOG, and manual-clear without initially-all-set), but > >> it should be useful for the ring buffer method and that *should* share > >> most of the code with the older methods. > > > > Using Eager Page Splitting with the ring buffer method would require > > splitting the entire memslot when dirty logging is enabled for that > > memslot right? Are you saying we should do that? > > Yeah, that's why I said it should share code with clear-on-get-dirty. > > For initially-all-set, where it's possible to do it and even easy-ish, I > would like to avoid paying the cost of splitting entirely upfront, when > enabling dirty page tracking. But you can already post an RFC that just > splits always when dirty page tracking is enabled, so that I have a bit > more of an idea of the new code, and of what it would entail to smear > the cost over the calls to KVM_CLEAR_DIRTY_LOG. Ok makes sense. Thanks for the feedback! > > Thanks, > > Paolo >
