Re: qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux