From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Ingo Molnar Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/8] KVM updates for 2.6.20-rc2 Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:30:38 +0100 Message-ID: <20061228113038.GA16190@elte.hu> References: <45939755.7010603@qumranet.com> <20061228103345.GA4708@elte.hu> <4593A4B7.2070404@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel Return-path: To: Avi Kivity Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4593A4B7.2070404-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org * Avi Kivity wrote: > Talking about the scheduler (and to the scheduler's author :), it > would be nice to hook the migration weight algorithm too. kvm guests > are considerably more expensive to migrate, at least on intel. what do you mean precisely, and where does the cost come from? To me it seems the cost of loading/saving a VMX context on Intel is the biggest cost, and that's roughly the same cost for VM exits/enters, regardless of what the scheduler does. What am i missing? Ingo ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys - and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV