Xiao, Takuya Yoshikawa <takuya.yoshikawa@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > What is your really want to say but i missed? > > How to improve and what we should pay for that. > > Note that I am not objecting to O(1) itself. > I forgot to say one important thing -- I might give you wrong impression. I am perfectly fine with your lock-less work. It is really nice! The reason I say much about O(1) is that O(1) and rmap based GET_DIRTY_LOG have fundamentally different characteristics. I am thinking really seriously how to make dirty page tracking work well with QEMU in the future. For example, I am thinking about multi-threaded and fine-grained GET_DIRTY_LOG. If we use rmap based GET_DIRTY_LOG, we can restrict write protection to only a selected area of one guest memory slot. So we may be able to make each thread process dirty pages independently from other threads by calling GET_DIRTY_LOG for its own area. But I know that O(1) has its own good point. So please wait a bit. I will write up what I am thinking or send patches. Anyway, I am looking forward to your lock-less work! It will improve the current GET_DIRTY_LOG performance. Thanks, Takuya -- 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
