On 2012-01-25 12:38, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> On 2012-01-19 18:28, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:46:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> Hi again, >>>> >>>> do we need some KVM knob comparable to qemu-kvm's -kvm-shadow-memory in >>>> upstream? >>>> >>>> If yes: The underlying IOCTL is x86-only. Are other archs interested in >>>> this long-term as well, ie. should the control become arch-independent? >>>> >>>> Jan >>> >>> Last time i asked about removal, Avi wished for it to remain. >>> >> >> Then I guess he should comment on this after returning to work. :) > > -kvm-shadow-memory is becoming less meaningful for ordinary workloads > since everything uses TDP these days. It's still meaningful for testing > (forcing aggressive cache replacement), or perhaps nested virtualization. So, is it used for testing in fact? Would a machine option "kvm_shadow_memory=n" be desirable? Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux -- 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
