From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MNTGM-00005m-Bn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:04:18 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1MNTGI-0008RZ-L7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:04:18 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=44043 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MNTGI-0008RC-Ff
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:04:14 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:38524)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1MNTGH-0001M0-TV
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Jul 2009 11:04:14 -0400
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 2009 18:04:07 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20090705150407.GK881@redhat.com>
References: <1246632116-31366-1-git-send-email-andre.przywara@amd.com>
	<4A4F745C.8010001@redhat.com>
	<DB13E24C-654D-4752-884E-D951A42D4CB5@suse.de>
	<4A50BE5D.5010005@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4A50BE5D.5010005@redhat.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFC] allow multi-core guests: introduce cores=
	option to -cpu
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@amd.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Sun, Jul 05, 2009 at 05:53:17PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> 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.
>
core2duo does not imply 2 cores. OSes use cpuid to discover this
information.

>> 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.
>
I agree. -numa is a different story. It is possible to have zillion
socket setup without numa at all.

--
			Gleb.