Re: [RFC PATCH 00/17] virtual-bus

[Avi Kivity]

Herbert Xu wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 04:07:09PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
>   
> > I think Rusty did mean a UP guest, and without schedule-and-forget.
> >     
>
> Going off on a tangent here, I don't really think it should matter
> whether we're UP or SMP.  The ideal state is where we have the
> same number of (virtual) TX queues as there are cores in the guest.
> On the host side we need the backend to run at least on a core
> that shares cache with the corresponding guest queue/core.  If
> that happens to be the same core as the guest core then it should
> work as well.
>
> IOW we should optimise it as if the host were UP.
>   

Good point - if we rely on having excess cores in the host, large guest 
scalability will drop.

--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/