On 06/28/2010 12:27 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
Am I looking at old code?
Apparently. Check book3s_mmu_*.c
I don't have that pattern.
(another difference is using struct hlist_head instead of list_head,
which I recommend since it saves space)
Hrm. I thought about this quite a bit before too, but that makes
invalidation more complicated, no? We always need to remember the
previous entry in a list.
hlist_for_each_entry_safe() does that.
+int kvmppc_mmu_hpte_init(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu)
+{
+ char kmem_name[128];
+
+ /* init hpte slab cache */
+ snprintf(kmem_name, 128, "kvm-spt-%p", vcpu);
+ vcpu->arch.hpte_cache = kmem_cache_create(kmem_name,
+ sizeof(struct hpte_cache), sizeof(struct hpte_cache), 0,
NULL);
Why not one global cache?
You mean over all vcpus? Or over all VMs?
Totally global. As in 'static struct kmem_cache *kvm_hpte_cache;'.
What would be the benefit?
Less and simpler code, better reporting through slabtop, less wastage of
partially allocated slab pages.
Because this way they don't interfere. An operation on one vCPU
doesn't inflict anything on another. There's also no locking
necessary this way.
The slab writers have solved this for everyone, not just us.
kmem_cache_alloc() will usually allocate from a per-cpu cache, so no
interference and/or locking. See ____cache_alloc().
If there's a problem in kmem_cache_alloc(), solve it there, don't
introduce workarounds.
So you would still keep different hash arrays and everything, just
allocate the objects from a global pool?
Yes.
I still fail to see how that benefits anyone.
See above.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
