On 07/14/2011 04:40 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote:
On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 04:26:39PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 07/14/2011 04:12 PM, Joerg Roedel wrote: >> Makes sense. I'll probably remove the lazy allocation and initialize >> both VMCBs at vcpu-creation time. The memory foodprint is the same as >> before because the hsave area was also allocated at the beginning. > > Related, would we need a pool of n_vmcbs/vmcb02s? Probably. This depends on how nested-svm will be used I think. It is not very hard to add if really needed. Some kind of LRU is certainly needed too then. > I guess the condition for reusing an n_vmcb would be: same vmcb_gpa and > at least one clean bit set? Same vmcb_gpa is sufficient I think. I nothing is marked clean then it is the same situation as if the vmcb_gpa is different.
Agree with both. -- 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
