| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] A question about guest_walk_tables
>From: Tian, Kevin
>Sent: 2007年12月6日 9:41
>
>>From: Tim Deegan [mailto:Tim.Deegan@xxxxxxxxxx]
>>Sent: 2007年12月5日 18:35
>>
>>At 18:22 +0800 on 05 Dec (1196878922), Tian, Kevin wrote:
>>> Hi, Tim,
>>> Just a curious question. Any reason why sh_page_fault can't
>>> benefit vtlb_lookup to skip heavy-weight guest_walk_tables,
>>like other
>>> places like sh_gva_to_gfn?
>>
>>For cases when we go on to make the shadow pagetables, we
>need the full
>>walk available so we know which MFNs to shadow.
>>
>>I don't know whether it would be worth adding a vtlb lookup for the
>>real-fault case; the fast-path code for not-present and MMIO catches a
>>lot of genuine faults already. We should definitely add the
>>walk result
>>to the vTLB in any case.
>>
>>Thanks,
>>
>>Tim.
>>
>
>Understand. fast-path should be enough without vtlb help.
>
>Thanks,
>Kevin
>
BTW, is it cleaner to move vtlb_insert into guest_walk_tables, which
is more natural and save the effort to update all invocation points?
Thanks,
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home