[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Priority of -accel

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: Priority of -accel
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 11:44:01 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.1.1

On 14/01/20 09:59, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> writes:
>> On 13/01/20 17:17, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> Perfect opportunity to change the default to something more useful.
>> I am not sure acutally if it's that more useful, now that we have
>> sanctioned qemu-kvm as the fast alternative.
> If there is a fast alternative, why ship the slow one?

I find it more consistent that qemu-system-* is doing emulation (and can
usually be ignored) and qemu-kvm is doing virtualization.  It's more
intuitive to launch qemu-system-x86_64 than "qemu-kvm --no-kvm".

What we could do is automatically install a qemu-kvm binary for the
"most suitable" target that has KVM enabled (i.e. for
qemu-system-x86_64, not qemu-system-i386) instead of leaving it to distros.


> No matter what we do, somebody is going to be confused.  How to resolve
> such a conundrum?  Utilitarian philosophy teaches us to pursue the
> greatest confusion of the greatest numbers.  I think not using x86
> hardware virtualization by default has been admirably successful there.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]