On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 14:26:23 +0800, Wen Congyang <we...@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote: > At 07/07/2011 10:32 AM, Taku Izumi Write: > > > >>>>>>> So why introduce VCPU level apis? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Adam Litke said IBM's performance team nead to control cpu bandwidth > >>>>>> for each > >>>>>> vcpu. > >>>>> Right, but we do not export that as a User API, that was my suggestion. > >>>>> We can internally control each vcpu's bandwidth, i.e. divide equally. > >>>> > >>>> Hmm, I heard that some server could run CPUs at different speed. > >>>> May be this patch can simulate this behavior. > >>> That happens on my laptop as well, depending on the machine load CPU > >>> frequency is changed but it is done transparently. > >> > >> I means explicitly CPU speed configuring. ;) > >> > >>> > >>> I am not sure if we are trying to simulate that here. > >> > >> So why not leave the flexible interface here, and let users make > >> the decision? > > > > In my mind, the flexibility is not always a good thing. > > It is nothing but troublesome for the person who doesn't like > > detailed setting. I don't know how many people want this flexibility. > > I think we should implement the flexibility. If we do not implement, and > we want it later, we can not reuse these codes(add new element, and > reimplement). IMHO, at present we can use the current SetSchedulerParameters API and whenever we need flexibility an API as suggested in this series could be added.
Thanks Nikunj -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list
