qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory sem


From: Avi Kivity
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics?
Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:38:54 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0

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.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]