2017-04-18 14:29+0200, Cornelia Huck:
> On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:11:55 +0200
> David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 13.04.2017 22:19, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> > new KVM_MAX_CONFIGURABLE_VCPUS, probably directly to INT_MAX/KVM_VCPU_ID,
>> > so we
>> > don't have to worry about it for a while.
>> >
>> > PPC
2017-04-18 13:11+0200, David Hildenbrand:
> On 13.04.2017 22:19, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> The basic idea is to let userspace provide the desired maximal number of
>> VCPUs and allocate only necessary memory for them.
>>
>> The goal is to freeze KVM_MAX_VCPUS at its current level and only increase
>
On Tue, 18 Apr 2017 13:11:55 +0200
David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.04.2017 22:19, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > The basic idea is to let userspace provide the desired maximal number of
> > VCPUs and allocate only necessary memory for them.
> >
> > The goal is to freeze KVM_MAX_VCPUS at its current le
On 13.04.2017 22:19, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> The basic idea is to let userspace provide the desired maximal number of
> VCPUs and allocate only necessary memory for them.
>
> The goal is to freeze KVM_MAX_VCPUS at its current level and only increase the
KVM_MAX_VCPUS might still increase e.g. if hw
4 matches
Mail list logo