From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: Live memory allocation? Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2009 17:58:46 +0300 Message-ID: <49D0DE26.8040009@redhat.com> References: <49CB86BE.40505@poboxes.info> <49CB8B59.20601@redhat.com> <49CB8CF6.70403@wpkg.org> <200903280738.34169.alberto@byu.edu> <49CF6AA4.2060108@redhat.com> <49D0CBCA.3000808@wpkg.org> <49D0CDB4.1010706@redhat.com> <49D0CF58.40109@wpkg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Nolan , kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Tomasz Chmielewski Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:51631 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751937AbZC3O6u (ORCPT ); Mon, 30 Mar 2009 10:58:50 -0400 In-Reply-To: <49D0CF58.40109@wpkg.org> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Tomasz Chmielewski wrote: >> >> Double caching is indeed a bad idea. That's why you have cache=off >> (though it isn't recommended with qcow2). > > cache= option is about write cache, right? > > Here, I'm talking about read cache. > > Or, does "cache=none" disable read cache as well? cache=writethrough disables the write cache cache=none disables host caching completely -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function