On 12/22/09 2:43 PM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 12/22/2009 09:41 PM, Gregory Haskins wrote: >> >>> It means that kvm locking suddenly affects more of the kernel. >>> >>> >> Thats ok. This would only be w.r.t. devices that are bound to the KVM >> instance anyway, so they better know what they are doing (and they do). >> >> > > It's okay to the author of that device. It's not okay to the kvm > developers who are still evolving the locking and have to handle all > devices that use xinterface. Perhaps, but like it or not, if you want to do in-kernel you need to invoke backends. And if you want to invoke backends, limiting it to thread wakeups is, well, limiting. For one, you miss out on that exploit I mentioned earlier which can help sometimes. Besides, the direction that Marcelo and I left the mmio/pio bus was that it would go lockless eventually, not "more lockful" ;) Has that changed? I honestly haven't followed whats going on in the io-bus code in a while. -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
