Hi Vinod,
Thank you for your report.
(2013/04/22 14:16), Chegu Vinod wrote:
> FYI... I had tried to use this change earlier and it did show some
> improvements in perf. (due to reduced exits).
>
> But as expected mlockall () on large sized guests adds a considerable
> delay in boot time.
Yes, i
Applied. Thanks.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
Hi Satoru,
FYI... I had tried to use this change earlier and it did show some
improvements in perf. (due to reduced exits).
But as expected mlockall () on large sized guests adds a considerable
delay in boot time. For e.g. on an 8 socket Westmere box => a 256G guest
: took an additional ~2+
Seiji Aguchi writes:
> Anthony,
>
>> Currently my company doesn't allow me to use git-send-email to send a email.
>> So now I'm trying to find work around with IT.
>
> Satoru and I still talk if we can use git-send-email with my company IT.
> But, it seems to take a long time...
>
> So, I attach
t; Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 11:18 AM
>> > To: Satoru Moriya; qemu-devel@nongnu.org
>> > Cc: Jan Kiszka; mtosa...@redhat.com; Paolo Bonzini; Seiji Aguchi;
>> > Tomoki Sekiyama; dle- deve...@lists.sourceforge.net;
>> > satoru.moriya...@hitachi.com
>> &g
yama; dle-deve...@lists.sourceforge.net;
> satoru.moriya...@hitachi.com
> Subject: RE: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] Add option to mlock qemu and guest memory
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Anthony Liguori [mailto:aligu...@us.ibm.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013
lists.sourceforge.net; satoru.moriya...@hitachi.com
> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] Add option to mlock qemu and guest memory
>
> Satoru Moriya writes:
>
> > In certain scenario, latency induced by paging is significant and
> > memory locking is needed. Also, in th
Satoru Moriya writes:
> In certain scenario, latency induced by paging is significant and
> memory locking is needed. Also, in the scenario with untrusted
> guests, latency improvement due to mlock is desired.
>
> This patch introduces a following new option to mlock guest and
> qemu memory:
>
>
