On 12/22/2011 01:56 PM, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> On some cpus the overhead for virtualization instructions is in the same
> range as a system call. Having to call multiple ioctls to get set registers
> will make userspace handled exits more expensive than necessary.
> Lets provide two sections in kvm_run to have a shared save area for
> guest registers.
> 1. the first section is read-only, to handle registers that have side-effects
> 2. the second section is read/write, e.g. for general purpose registers.
An alternative is to have a single section, with a bitmask set by
userspace to indicate which registers have not been changed (a la svm's
CleanBits). Is this worthwhile for s390?
> };
> + /* Here are two fields that allow to access often used registers
> + * directly, to avoid the overhead of the ioctl system call */
> + union {
> + /* registers which can be only read */
> + struct sync_ro_regs sync_ro_regs;
kvm_
> + char padding[1024];
> + };
> + union {
> + /* read/write guest registers */
> + struct sync_rw_regs sync_rw_regs;
kvm_
> + char padding[1024];
> + };
> };
blank line
> +These fields allow userspace to access certain guest registers without
> +having to call SET/GET_*REGS. Thus we can avoid some system call
> +overhead if userspace has to handle the exit. (only available if
> +KVM_CAP_SYNC_REGS is set). The ioctls will still work.
>
>
--
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
