On 06/11/2012 10:25 PM, Sasha Levin wrote: > On Mon, 2012-06-11 at 20:06 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> Sorry, no, first demonstrate no performance regressions, then we can >> talk about performance improvements. > > No performance regressions? For caching? How would that work? A small degradation might be acceptable. 2X cpu consumption is not. IMO "using host memory" is the problem, because it involves copies and hypercalls. Try giving the memory to the guest, either through the balloon or through a pci device that exposes memory that can be withdrawn. That will make everything *much* faster. > > Or even if you meant just the kvm-tmem interface overhead, I don't see > how that would work. > I meant the overall overhead, as seen by users. -- 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
