Although, same results can be obtained by doing the v1.2 way, i.e. making one
hypercall requesting these 1024 changes, no?
-Himanshu
On Wed, Apr 26, 2006 at 05:18:28PM +0100, Keir Fraser wrote:
>
> On 26 Apr 2006, at 16:35, Himanshu Raj wrote:
>
> >I am trying to understand the rationale behind this change. In
> >previous case,
> >there would be no page faults due to page table updates and only one
> >hypercall.
> >In the second case, there would be atleast 2 page faults due to PT
> >management
> >activity, but no hypercalls. Besides, mapping and remapping with
> >different permissions
> >imply removing this entry from TLB (which is hopefully being done with
> >invlpg).
> >Benefit of latter approach only seems to be the removal of xen
> >specific linux
> >code. Why was the approach changed? Could someone please shed some
> >light on
> >this?
>
> It's useful for batched updates (e.g., fork()) where the 2 faults are
> amortised across up to 1024 pte changes.
>
> -- Keir
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Himanshu Raj
PhD Student, GaTech (www.cc.gatech.edu/~rhim)
I prefer to receive attachments in an open, non-proprietary format.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home