At 07/07/2011 10:32 AM, Taku Izumi Write: > >>>>>>> So why introduce VCPU level apis? >>>>>> >>>>>> Adam Litke said IBM's performance team nead to control cpu bandwidth for each >>>>>> vcpu. >>>>> Right, but we do not export that as a User API, that was my suggestion. >>>>> We can internally control each vcpu's bandwidth, i.e. divide equally. >>>> >>>> Hmm, I heard that some server could run CPUs at different speed. >>>> May be this patch can simulate this behavior. >>> That happens on my laptop as well, depending on the machine load CPU >>> frequency is changed but it is done transparently. >> >> I means explicitly CPU speed configuring. ;) >> >>> >>> I am not sure if we are trying to simulate that here. >> >> So why not leave the flexible interface here, and let users make >> the decision? > > In my mind, the flexibility is not always a good thing. > It is nothing but troublesome for the person who doesn't like > detailed setting. I don't know how many people want this flexibility. I think we should implement the flexibility. If we do not implement, and we want it later, we can not reuse these codes(add new element, and reimplement). I'd prefer the flexibility. IBM's performance team has tested this patch, and they said this patch produced the expected and desired performance characteristics. > > I'm for Nikunj's desgin. Do you have any concerns? Hi, izumi-san, Do you still object this implement? > > > -- > Best regards, > Taku Izumi <izumi.taku@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > -- > libvir-list mailing list > libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list > -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list