On 2012-01-25 13:04, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 01/25/2012 01:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>> -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? > > It is not, but it should be. There's an extra_params option in > autotest, I'll start using it to stress the mmu some more, even though > it's going to slow things down for me. OK. > >> Would a machine option >> "kvm_shadow_memory=n" be desirable? > > Not sure, this is a host option, not a guest option. Machine options > should be guest-visible. machine options are not guest visible. Basically, this options falls into the same category as kernel_irqchip. Do we have alternatives? A top-level command line options is surely none. 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
