Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 17 Apr 2012 21:37:48 +0900 | From | Takuya Yoshikawa <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 00/13] KVM: MMU: fast page fault |
| |
On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 10:51:40 +0300 Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com> 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
| |