On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:51:40 +0300 Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > That's true with the write protect everything approach we use now. But > it's not true with range-based write protection, where you issue > GET_DIRTY_LOG on a range of pages and only need to re-write-protect them. > > (the motivation for that is to decrease the time between GET_DIRTY_LOG > and sending the page; as the time increases, the chances that the page > got re-dirtied go up). Thank you for explaining this. I was planning to give the userspace more freedom. Since there are many known algorithms to predict hot memory pages, the userspace will be able to tune the frequency of GET_DIRTY_LOG for such parts not to get too many faults repeatedly, if we can restrict the range of pages to protect. This is the fine-grained control. 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
