[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to
From: |
Thomas Huth |
Subject: |
Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option) |
Date: |
Tue, 7 Jan 2020 15:14:52 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.0 |
On 07/01/2020 13.54, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 07, 2020 at 01:23:18PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 07/01/20 13:18, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> I don't think we need a separate priority parameter here. But IMHO it's
>>> really rather common practice to prioritize the last option. So while
>>> it might be more "self-explanatory" to a CLI newbie if the first
>>> occurrence got the highest priority, it might be rather confusing
>>> instead for a CLI veteran...?
>>
>> Prioritising the last certainly makes sense for a choose-one-only
>> option, but I'm not sure it's the same for a choose-best option. After
>> all it was -machine accel=kvm:tcg, not -machine accel=tcg:kvm...
>
> IIUC, the main use case for specifying multiple accelerators is
> so that lazy invokations can ask for a hardware virt, but then get
> fallback to TCG if not available. For things that should be platform
> portabile, there's more than just kvm to consider though, as we have
> many accelerators. Listing all possible accelerators is kind of
> crazy though no matter what the syntax is.
>
> How about taking a completely different approach, inspired by the
> -cpu arg and implement:
>
> -machine accel=best
Something like that sounds like the best solution to me, but I'd maybe
rather not call it "best", since the definition of "best" might depend
on your use-case (e.g. do you want to use a CPU close to the host or
something different which might be better emulated by TCG?).
What about "-accel any" or "-accel fastest" or something similar?
Thomas
- [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/01/06
- Re: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option, Max Reitz, 2020/01/06
- Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Thomas Huth, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Thomas Huth, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option),
Thomas Huth <=
- Re: Priority of -accel, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Thomas Huth, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel, Markus Armbruster, 2020/01/13
- Re: Priority of -accel, Christophe de Dinechin, 2020/01/13
- Re: Priority of -accel, Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/13
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Daniel P . Berrangé, 2020/01/07
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Alex Bennée, 2020/01/08
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Thomas Huth, 2020/01/08
- Re: Priority of -accel (was: [PATCH] tests/qemu-iotests: Update tests to recent desugarized -accel option), Paolo Bonzini, 2020/01/08