Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 08/02/2010 08:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
I sent a patch to include the cache size when using -cpu host, but
this has been n'acked because the benefit is not clear.
Anthony, why was this NACKed?
I didn't NACK it.
You are right. I am sorry if that created a misunderstanding, I actually
meant: "was not committed".
My concern is that we're still not handling live migration with -cpu
host in any meaningful way. Exposing more details without addressing
live migration is going to increase the likelihood of major failure.
Would you accept a patch simply disabling migration in case -cpu host
was used in the first place?
We need to add cpuid information to live migration such that we can
generate a graceful failure during migration. Really, we shouldn't have
taken -cpu host in the first place without this.
Is there already a way to communicate from the target to the source?
This would allow to check for migrate-ability before we transfer any
data. Or should we handle this in a management application?
Regards,
Andre.
--
Andre Przywara
AMD-Operating System Research Center (OSRC), Dresden, Germany
Tel: +49 351 488-3567-12
--
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
