GaoYi gaoyi...@gmail.com wrote on 20/09/2012 08:42:51 AM:
The CPU isolation in Hitachi patches is just to improve the real
time performance of GUEST. The core of it, direct IRQ delivery, is
very similar to that of ELI.
For the ELI patches,
(1) Since EOI part of ELI is already
On 2012-09-20 08:58, Abel Gordon wrote:
GaoYi gaoyi...@gmail.com wrote on 20/09/2012 08:42:51 AM:
The CPU isolation in Hitachi patches is just to improve the real
time performance of GUEST. The core of it, direct IRQ delivery, is
very similar to that of ELI.
For the ELI patches,
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 09:14:31AM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-09-20 08:58, Abel Gordon wrote:
GaoYi gaoyi...@gmail.com wrote on 20/09/2012 08:42:51 AM:
The CPU isolation in Hitachi patches is just to improve the real
time performance of GUEST. The core of it, direct IRQ
On 09/20/2012 10:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Again: If you think the feature is non-invasive, send patches against
the kernel and QEMU.
And explain why it is better than what modern HW provides.
If it's non-invasive (and easily maintainable), it doesn't have to be
better.
--
error
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:18:11PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 09/20/2012 10:19 AM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
Again: If you think the feature is non-invasive, send patches against
the kernel and QEMU.
And explain why it is better than what modern HW provides.
If it's non-invasive (and
[putting Avi on CC as the final decision maker]
On 2012-09-19 15:37, Muli Ben-Yehuda wrote:
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:08:40PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-09-18 14:50, GaoYi wrote:
Hi Jan,
I have followed a previous thread about ELI proposed by Abel Gordon,
On 09/19/2012 05:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
Although ELI works today, I'd be happy to
hear what parts of it you find invasive and imperfect (what
software ever is perfect?)
It's imperfect as you need to dedicate a core to pure guest-mode load
and cannot run userspace on that core (cannot walk
On 2012-09-19 16:43, Abel Gordon wrote:
It's imperfect as you need to dedicate a core to pure guest-mode load
and cannot run userspace on that core (cannot walk through
userspace-based device models e.g.).
That's not correct.
For the evaluation, we dedicated a core for each guest to
It's imperfect as you need to dedicate a core to pure guest-mode load
and cannot run userspace on that core (cannot walk through
userspace-based device models e.g.).
That's not correct.
For the evaluation, we dedicated a core for each guest to maximize the
performance but this
is not a
On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 03:08:40PM +0200, Jan Kiszka wrote:
On 2012-09-18 14:50, GaoYi wrote:
Hi Jan,
I have followed a previous thread about ELI proposed by Abel Gordon,
http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg73907.html.
I wonder whether this mechanism will be incorporated in KVM
The CPU isolation in Hitachi patches is just to improve the real time
performance of GUEST. The core of it, direct IRQ delivery, is very similar
to that of ELI.
For the ELI patches,
(1) Since EOI part of ELI is already supported by the Intel Sandy
Bridge CPUs and requires modifications
On 2012-09-18 14:50, GaoYi wrote:
Hi Jan,
I have followed a previous thread about ELI proposed by Abel Gordon,
http://www.spinics.net/lists/kvm/msg73907.html.
I wonder whether this mechanism will be incorporated in KVM someday.
Likely not. Both Intel and AMD will soon ship hardware
12 matches
Mail list logo
