On Thu, 08 Dec 2011 12:37:48 +0200, Sasha Levin <levinsasha928@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2011-12-08 at 20:14 +1030, Rusty Russell wrote: > > On Wed, 7 Dec 2011 17:48:17 +0200, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Wed, Dec 07, 2011 at 04:02:45PM +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > On Sun, 2011-12-04 at 20:23 +0200, Sasha Levin wrote: > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > Rusty, Michael, does the below looks a reasonable optimization for you? > > > > > > OK overall but a bit hard to say for sure as it looks pretty incomplete ... > > > > A static threshold is very hackish; we need to either initialize it to > > a proven-good value (since noone will ever change it) or be cleverer. > > I'll better wait to see how the threshold issue is resolved, and > possibly do it as a dynamic value which depends on the threshold. > > I doubt theres one magic value which would work for all. Sure, but if it's generally better than the current value, I'll apply it. Cheers, Rusty. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
