From: Chris Wright <chrisw@redhat.com>
To: kvm@vger.kernel.org
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Subject: [Qemu-devel] KVM developer call minutes (Jan 12)
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 08:50:52 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20100112165052.GC5351@x200.localdomain> (raw)
Attendees: Avi, Dor, Gleb, Michael, Chris, Juan, John, Kevin, Armbru, Amit,
Anthony, Glauber, AlexW, AlexG, Luiz, Jes
Minutes (please reply w/ corrections or follow-ups):
- administrivia
- no plan to do formal attendance
- above attendance list is approximate
- discussion focused on issues relevant to KVM upstream development
- will try recording the call
- will produce minutes
- qemu 0.13 kvm feature merge issues
- looking for post-mortem analysis on what worked and didn't for 0.12 release
- need harder policy re: feature freeze
- Is a longer release cycle OK? Planning for June 1 (6 month vs 3 month)
- no real objections
- what about the version? are we ready for 1.0?
- going to 1.0 makes sense if we can merge KVM support
- mtloop (from malc) vs i/o thread
- SIGALRM vs. select() timeout
- SMP changes
- drop current patchset
- irqchip conversion
- need to move to normal main loop, instead of KVM specific main loop
- eventfd, signalfd, etc..
- compatibility across platforms is complicated
- either drop use of signalfd, or create higher-level abstraction
- higher-level abstraction makes most sense
- common mechnaism for vcpu locking, vcpu thread launching, etc. for
device model threading
- live migration in the I/O thread is showing performance limitation
- need some more release sync w/ qemu and kvm
- different developer and user bases
- lots of feedback from KVM users when qemu-kvm rebases
- Avi considering restarting snapshot releases
- already doing regular weekly (or more often for invasive features)
merges w/ qemu.git
- unclear there's antything that needs to be done here
- will qemu-kvm deprecate IA-64?
- no need to actively remove unless it is in the way or gets to the
point that it is hopelessly broken
- vhost-net todo's
- more patch review needed
- some concern about security implications re: socket binding to qemu
- needs more eyes
- current version supports level interrupts
- anyone interested in working on DMA offloading w/ engine like IOAT
- possible to expose DMA engine to guest in virtio?
reply other threads:[~2010-01-12 16:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20100112165052.GC5351@x200.localdomain \
--to=chrisw@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).