On 04/17/2012 03:37 PM, Takuya Yoshikawa wrote: > 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. Do you want per-page control, or just range-based? -- 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
