On 2012-04-04 11:36, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/04/2012 12:22 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>>>> Until we do have this fast path we can just fill this value with zeros, >>>>> so kernel patch (almost) does not need to change for this - >>>>> just the header. >>>> >>>> Partially implemented interfaces invite breakage. >>> >>> Hmm true. OK scrap this idea then, it's not clear >>> whether we are going to optimize this anyway. >>> >> >> Also, the problem is that keeping that ID in userspace requires an >> infrastructure like the MSIRoutingCache that I proposed originally. Not >> much won /wrt invasiveness there. > > Internal qemu refactorings are not a driver for kvm interface changes. No, but qemu demonstrates the applicability and handiness of the kernel interfaces. > >> So we should really do the routing >> optimization in the kernel - one day. > > No, we need to make a choice: > > explicit handles: array lookup, more expensive setup > no handles: hash loopup, more expensive, but no setup, and no artificial > limits ...and I think we should head for option 2. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
