[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for agenda for 2016-02-16
From: |
Juan Quintela |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call for agenda for 2016-02-16 |
Date: |
Tue, 23 Feb 2016 10:59:51 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) |
Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 17.02.2016 23:51, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Feb 16, 2016 at 12:54:57PM +0100, Christian Borntraeger wrote:
>>>> So my quick and dirty summary of CPU as _I_ understand it
>>>> (and I only have some part time bandwidth at the moment for that)
>>>>
>>>> x86 has cpu hotplug. Some history
>>>> qemu-kvm had cpu_set in the past
>>>> qemu has cpu_add for a while now
>>>> libvirt code uses cpu_add cross-platform out of the box
>>>>
>>>> proposal to use device_add. Currently this has the following issues that
>>>> we need to discuss:
>>>> - will require capability checking and dual code in libvirt (and libvirt
>>>> updates)
>>>> - Power has some constraints that are hard to model with just device add
>>>> - David Gibson proposes a two layer interface
>>>> - low level: device add cpu-package
>>>> - high level
>>>> - David Hildenbrand has some concerns regarding CPU models (with base
>>>> model + feature
>>>> on/off), as device_add needs instantiatable type
>>>> - devel_del: s390 has no interface for cpu removal (Matts latest patches
>>>> reset the
>>>> machine just like z/VM - until we have some interface)
>>>> - anything else? (cpu hotplug on ARM or MIPS?)
>>>>
>>>> Would be good to use todays call to have a plan how to finish things soon.
>>>> (maybe even for 2.6)
>>>
>>> Did the call happen? I am away from work for most days during the
>>> next 2 weeks, so I couldn't attend.
>>
>> Yeap. I sent some minutes, but they are kind of incoherent, I hope that
>> Andreas or Christian fill the holes...
>
> Hi Juan,
>
> did you sent the minutes to the mailing list? ... In case you did not
> sent it to the list yet, could you please do so, so we've got a base for
> further discussion? (and if you did already, could you please point me
> to the right mail?)
>
> Thanks a lot!
Just resent, I did it to the wrong address, sorry.
Later, Juan.
>
> Thomas