On Thu, Feb 07, 2019 at 01:13:51PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 02:23:28PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> >> I haven't seend any problem about using 64 or 128. And it make much
> >> less contention on the locks. Just change it.
> >
> > Isn't
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 02:23:28PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> I haven't seend any problem about using 64 or 128. And it make much
>> less contention on the locks. Just change it.
>
> Isn't there a issue with having a fixed page count given the
> very different def
Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 02:23:28PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> I haven't seend any problem about using 64 or 128. And it make much
>> less contention on the locks. Just change it.
>
> Isn't there a issue with having a fixed page count given the
> very different def
On Wed, Feb 06, 2019 at 02:23:28PM +0100, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I haven't seend any problem about using 64 or 128. And it make much
> less contention on the locks. Just change it.
Isn't there a issue with having a fixed page count given the
very different default page sizes across architectures
