On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 04:03:13PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > I don't expect drastic changes, but then, I still don't understand it well. > > Part of the review process is the maintainer becoming familiar (and, in > some cases, comfortable) with the code. The nit-picking is often just > me proving to myself that I understand what's happening. Right, understanding is an important part. One thing I try to achieve for nested-svm is to make it less likely that unrelated code changes break it. One step will be accessor funtions to change intercept masks and tsc_offset. > btw, speaking of drastic changes to nsvm, one thing I'd like to see is > the replacement of those kmaps with something like put_user_try() and > put_user_catch(). It should be as fast (or faster) than kmaps, and not > affect preemptibility. Yes, I want to get rid of them too. I thought about using copy_from/to_user in the vmrun/vmexit path. I need to measure if this has any performance impact, though. But the vmrun/vmexit path in nested-svm will see some major changes in the near future anyway to improve performance and prepare it for clean-bits emulation. In this step I will also address the kmap problem. But first on the list for me is to make the instruction emulator aware of instruction intercepts. Security is more important then performance. Joerg -- 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
