Herbert Xu wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 04:07:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
I think Rusty did mean a UP guest, and without schedule-and-forget.
Going off on a tangent here, I don't really think it should matter
whether we're UP or SMP. The ideal state is where we have the
same number of (virtual) TX queues as there are cores in the guest.
On the host side we need the backend to run at least on a core
that shares cache with the corresponding guest queue/core. If
that happens to be the same core as the guest core then it should
work as well.
IOW we should optimise it as if the host were UP.
Good point - if we rely on having excess cores in the host, large guest
scalability will drop.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
