On 03/03/16 12:23, Joao Martins wrote:
>
> On 03/03/2016 10:24 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 03/03/16 09:52, Joao Martins wrote:
>> In particular, I am concerned about giving the toolstack the ability to
>> blindly control the APIC IDs. Their layout is very closely linked to
>>
On 03/03/2016 10:24 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/03/16 09:52, Joao Martins wrote:
>>
> In particular, I am concerned about giving the toolstack the ability to
> blindly control the APIC IDs. Their layout is very closely linked to
> topology, and in particular to the HTT flag.
On 03/03/16 09:52, Joao Martins wrote:
>
In particular, I am concerned about giving the toolstack the ability to
blindly control the APIC IDs. Their layout is very closely linked to
topology, and in particular to the HTT flag.
Overall, I want to avoid any possibility of
On 03/02/2016 08:03 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 02/03/16 19:18, Joao Martins wrote:
>>
>> On 02/25/2016 05:21 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>>> On 22/02/16 21:02, Joao Martins wrote:
Hey!
This series are a follow-up on the thread about the performance
of hard-pinned HVM guests.
On 02/03/16 19:18, Joao Martins wrote:
>
> On 02/25/2016 05:21 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
>> On 22/02/16 21:02, Joao Martins wrote:
>>> Hey!
>>>
>>> This series are a follow-up on the thread about the performance
>>> of hard-pinned HVM guests. Here we propose allowing libxl to
>>> change how the CPU
On 02/25/2016 05:21 PM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/02/16 21:02, Joao Martins wrote:
>> Hey!
>>
>> This series are a follow-up on the thread about the performance
>> of hard-pinned HVM guests. Here we propose allowing libxl to
>> change how the CPU topology looks like for the HVM guest, which
On 26/02/16 15:42, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 10:27 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:03:46PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
>>>
As part of my further cpuid work, I will need to fix this. I was
planning to fix it by requiring full cpu
On Fri, 2016-02-26 at 10:27 -0500, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:03:46PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> >
> > > As part of my further cpuid work, I will need to fix this. I was
> > > planning to fix it by requiring full cpu topology information to
> > > be
> > >
On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 04:03:46PM +0100, Dario Faggioli wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 17:21 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> > On 22/02/16 21:02, Joao Martins wrote:
> > >
> > > Any comments are appreciated!
> > Hey. Sorry I am late getting to this - I am currently swamped. Some
> > general
On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 17:21 +, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 22/02/16 21:02, Joao Martins wrote:
> >
> > Any comments are appreciated!
> Hey. Sorry I am late getting to this - I am currently swamped. Some
> general observations.
>
Hi,
I'm also looking forward to find the time to look at this
On 22/02/16 21:02, Joao Martins wrote:
> Hey!
>
> This series are a follow-up on the thread about the performance
> of hard-pinned HVM guests. Here we propose allowing libxl to
> change how the CPU topology looks like for the HVM guest, which can
> favor certain workloads as depicted by Elena on
Hey!
This series are a follow-up on the thread about the performance
of hard-pinned HVM guests. Here we propose allowing libxl to
change how the CPU topology looks like for the HVM guest, which can
favor certain workloads as depicted by Elena on this thread [0].
It shows around 22-23% gain on
12 matches
Mail list logo
