On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 01:00:10PM +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2013 at 12:51:34PM +0300, Abel Gordon wrote: > > > > > > Gleb Natapov <gleb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote on 12/04/2013 01:48:04 PM: > > > > > On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 01:44:14PM +0300, Abel Gordon wrote: > > > > > > > > Ok, so then you prefer to add the inline functions to read/write to the > > > > vmcs12 > > > > fields, (to set the request bit if shadowed field changed) and you are > > not > > > > concerned > > > > about any merge/rebase mess. I will work on this direction. > > > > I'll first send an independent patch to introduce the accessors. Once > > you > > > > apply this patch, I'll continue and send you v2 patches for shadow > > vmcs. > > > > > > > > Do you agree ? > > > Yes. > > > > Looking again at the code it seems like we could avoid adding the > > accessors. > > We could just set a flag in nested_vmx_vmexit and > > nested_vmx_entry_failure. Then, in vmx_vcpu_run we check/reset the flag and > > call copy_vmcs12_to_shadow (if required). > > > > What do you think ? > Good idea! With accessors we can do further optimization by copying only > things that changed, but it will be premature optimization at this > point. > Actually this is good idea only if we know for sure that VMX emulation changes vmcs12 only during guest entry/exit. Is this the case? I think so. -- Gleb. -- 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
