Nakajima, Jun wrote: > Most of H/W-virtualization capable processors out there don't support > that feature today. I think the decision (kvm or qemu) should be done > based on performance data. I'm not worried about maintenance issues; the > APIC code is not expected to change frequently. I'm a bit worried about > extra complexity caused by such split, though. > >
In principle we could measure the performance cost today with the pv-net driver; however it still does a lot of copies which could be eliminated. > BTW, I see CPU utilization of qemu is almost always 99% in the top > command when I run kernel build in an x86-64 Linux guest. > Isn't that expected? if your guest image is mostly cached in the host, the guest would have nothing to block on. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Take Surveys. Earn Cash. Influence the Future of IT Join SourceForge.net's Techsay panel and you'll get the chance to share your opinions on IT & business topics through brief surveys-and earn cash http://www.techsay.com/default.php?page=join.php&p=sourceforge&CID=DEVDEV _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
