From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andre Przywara Subject: Re: KVM Processor cache size Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2010 00:35:49 +0200 Message-ID: <4C574845.8060906@amd.com> References: <4C56BF6F.9040402@amd.com> <4C56C353.7020607@redhat.com> <4C574512.6030903@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Avi Kivity , Ricardo Martins , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from tx2ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com ([65.55.88.14]:25557 "EHLO TX2EHSOBE008.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751547Ab0HBWfx (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Aug 2010 18:35:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4C574512.6030903@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 08/02/2010 08:08 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >>> I sent a patch to include the cache size when using -cpu host, but >>> this has been n'acked because the benefit is not clear. >> >> Anthony, why was this NACKed? > > I didn't NACK it. You are right. I am sorry if that created a misunderstanding, I actually meant: "was not committed". > > My concern is that we're still not handling live migration with -cpu > host in any meaningful way. Exposing more details without addressing > live migration is going to increase the likelihood of major failure. Would you accept a patch simply disabling migration in case -cpu host was used in the first place? > > We need to add cpuid information to live migration such that we can > generate a graceful failure during migration. Really, we shouldn't have > taken -cpu host in the first place without this. Is there already a way to communicate from the target to the source? This would allow to check for migrate-ability before we transfer any data. Or should we handle this in a management application? Regards, Andre. -- Andre Przywara AMD-Operating System Research Center (OSRC), Dresden, Germany Tel: +49 351 488-3567-12