From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics? Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 14:04:26 +0200 Message-ID: <4F1FEFCA.2060907@redhat.com> References: <4F1810AF.8010002@siemens.com> <20120119172802.GD11381@amt.cnet> <4F185535.1060908@siemens.com> <4F1FE9CE.5050401@redhat.com> <4F1FEE1F.8080907@siemens.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel , kvm To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: In-Reply-To: <4F1FEE1F.8080907@siemens.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel=gmane.org@nongnu.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 01/25/2012 01:57 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > > > > -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. > > So, is it used for testing in fact? It is not, but it should be. There's an extra_params option in autotest, I'll start using it to stress the mmu some more, even though it's going to slow things down for me. > Would a machine option > "kvm_shadow_memory=n" be desirable? Not sure, this is a host option, not a guest option. Machine options should be guest-visible. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function