On 01/07/2010 11:11 AM, Dor Laor wrote:
On 01/07/2010 10:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 01/07/2010 10:03 AM, Dor Laor wrote:
We can debate about the exact name/model to represent the Nehalem
family, I don't have an issue with that and actually Intel and Amd
should define it.
AMD and Intel already defined their names (in cat /proc/cpuinfo). They
don't define families, the whole idea is to segment the market.
The idea here is to minimize the number of models we should have the
following range for Intel for example:
pentium3 - merom - penry - Nehalem - host - kvm/qemu64
So we're supplying wide range of cpus, p3 for maximum flexibility and
migration, nehalem for performance and migration, host for maximum
performance and qemu/kvm64 for custom maid.
There's no such thing as Nehalem.
This is exactly what vmware are doing:
- Intel CPUs :
http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1991
- AMD CPUs :
http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1992
They don't have to deal with different qemu and kvm versions.
Both our customers - the end users. It's not their problem.
IMO what's missing today is a safe and sound cpu emulation that is
simply and friendly to represent. qemu64,+popcount is not simple for
the end user. There is no reason to through it on higher level mgmt.
There's no simple solution except to restrict features to what was
available on the first processors.
--
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
