From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:52597) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rq1Bz-0006ko-UD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:39:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rq1Bt-0002rS-T9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:39:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36299) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rq1Bt-0002rB-C0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jan 2012 06:39:01 -0500 Message-ID: <4F1FE9CE.5050401@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 13:38:54 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F1810AF.8010002@siemens.com> <20120119172802.GD11381@amt.cnet> <4F185535.1060908@siemens.com> In-Reply-To: <4F185535.1060908@siemens.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu-kvm upstreaming: Do we want -kvm-shadow-memory semantics? List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel , kvm On 01/19/2012 07:39 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-01-19 18:28, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 01:46:39PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >> Hi again, > >> > >> do we need some KVM knob comparable to qemu-kvm's -kvm-shadow-memory in > >> upstream? > >> > >> If yes: The underlying IOCTL is x86-only. Are other archs interested in > >> this long-term as well, ie. should the control become arch-independent? > >> > >> Jan > > > > Last time i asked about removal, Avi wished for it to remain. > > > > Then I guess he should comment on this after returning to work. :) -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. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function