On 06/29/2012 12:25 PM, Tomoki Sekiyama wrote: > Hi, thanks for your comments. > > On 2012/06/29 2:34, Avi Kivity wrote: > > On 06/28/2012 08:26 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > >>> This is both impressive and scary. What is the target scenario here? > >>> Partitioning? I don't see this working for generic consolidation. > >> > >> From my POV, partitioning - including hard realtime partitions - would > >> provide some use cases. But, as far as I saw, there are still major > >> restrictions in this approach, e.g. that you can't return to userspace > >> on the slave core. Or even execute the in-kernel device models on that > >> core. > > Exactly this is for partitioning that requires bare-metal performance > with low latency and realtime.
It's hard for me to evaluate how large that segment is. Since the patchset is so intrusive, it needs a large potential user set to justify, or a large reduction in complexity, or both. > I think it is also useful for workload > like HPC with MPI, that is CPU intensive and that needs low latency. I keep hearing about people virtualizing these types of workloads, but I haven't yet understood why. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
