From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: nVMX: Eliminate vmcs02 pool Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2017 18:18:22 +0100 Message-ID: References: <5de0d265-be48-ec6a-3ec9-c55c742c4213@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Mark Kanda , kvm list , =?UTF-8?B?UmFkaW0gS3LEjW3DocWZ?= , ameya.more@oracle.com To: Jim Mattson , David Hildenbrand Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:37242 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753174AbdK0RS2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Nov 2017 12:18:28 -0500 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 27/11/2017 18:17, Jim Mattson wrote: > Mark was kind enough to upstream my change for me. Ok, then it should have you as the author. I'll fix that. Paolo > On Thu, Nov 23, 2017 at 8:59 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> On 21.11.2017 18:22, Mark Kanda wrote: >>> The potential performance advantages of a vmcs02 pool have never been >>> realized. To simplify the code, eliminate the pool. Instead, a single >>> vmcs02 is allocated per VCPU when the VCPU enters VMX operation. >> >> Did you do any performance measurement to come to the conclusion that we >> can remove it? :) >> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Jim Mattson >> >> -> why is that in here? >> >>> Signed-off-by: Mark Kanda >>> Reviewed-by: Ameya More >>> --- >>> arch/x86/kvm/vmx.c | 146 >> >> -- >> >> Thanks, >> >> David / dhildenb