On 12/05/2012 01:46 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: "Yaniv Kaul" <[email protected]>
To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <[email protected]>
Cc: "engine-devel" <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, December 5, 2012 12:23:47 PM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] host cpu feature
On 12/05/2012 12:32 PM, Laszlo Hornyak wrote:
Hi,
CPU-Host support allows the virtual machines to see and utilize the
host's CPU flags, this enables better performance in VM's, at the
price of worse portablity.
http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Cpu-host_Support
Your feedback is welcome!
Thank you,
Laszlo
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
- I assume that when you allow migration, you'd use host-model? This
is
not clear from the design. It seems like we VDSM developers can
choose
to use either this or passthrough, while in practice we should
support both.
If AllowMigrateCPUHost is set to true (in case you have the same cpu model
everywhere in your DC) migration of such hsots will be enabled. Otherwise it
will not be enabled.
It's not going to help just enabling it - you need to use 'host-model'
and not 'host-passthrough', so there'll be a reasonable chance to
succeed the migration, AFAIK.
- I'm still convinced and commented on both relevat oVirt and libvirt
BZs that we need to add x2apic support to the CPU, regardless of what
the host CPU exposes.
AFAIK, the KVM developers agree with me.
Not quite sure how is this related... could you send some URL's for the
bugreports?
It's related because x2apic improves performance, and so does '-cpu
host', but that doesn't enable x2apic implicitly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=838469#c7
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700272#c28
Y.
Y.
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
