From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [RFC] allow multi-core guests: introduce cores= option to -cpu Date: Sun, 05 Jul 2009 17:53:17 +0300 Message-ID: <4A50BE5D.5010005@redhat.com> References: <1246632116-31366-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com> <4A4F745C.8010001@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Andre Przywara , anthony@codemonkey.ws, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Alexander Graf Return-path: Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:52363 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753771AbZGEOvI (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Jul 2009 10:51:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 07/05/2009 04:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> I thought of using -smp [processors=]2,cores=4,threads=2 (for a total >> of 16 threads), but I think it makes more sense with -cpu. > > > I actually think putting this in -smp makes more sense. -cpu really > shouldn't need to be touched by normal users and as long as you can > either -cpu host or -cpu safe that should be enough. Maybe. But in that case -cpu core2duo should imply cores=2 and -smp 2 -cpu core2duo will bring up 4 cores spread across two sockets. > But then again maybe we should replace -smp with something more useful > like -numa where you'd then specify #CPUs, #cores, mem-cpu connection, > etc. I'd prefer -numa to specify the memory topology (and connections of sockets to memory nodes), and -smp or -cpu to specify the intra-socket topology. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function