From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Omar Khan Subject: Re: paravirtualization structure Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2007 20:29:34 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <45D9C127.9050201@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity writes: > The hypercall sequence does not avoid a vmexit. The guest issues a > vmcall instruction, which is trapped and processed by the host. > Thanks for replying Avi. In your response (http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/481457) to the announcement of the KVM paravirtualization patch you said about the cr3 related hypercall that: "The gain probably comes not only from avoiding the vmentry/vmexit, but also from avoiding the flushing of the global page tlb entries." Is the vmexit caused by the vmcall more efficient/different than the vmexit that is caused by writing to the cr3 register say. Thanks Omar Khan ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV