search for: sillier

...this isn't an optimization. One of the issues of current balloon is the 4k page size assumption. For example if you free a huge page you have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host. Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g. when it's using huge tlb fs). It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k. So as long as we are changing things, let's not hard-code the 12 shift thing everywhere. Two things to consider: - host should pass its base page size to guest this can be a separate patch and for now we can fall back on 12 bit if not there -...

...this isn't an optimization. One of the issues of current balloon is the 4k page size assumption. For example if you free a huge page you have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host. Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g. when it's using huge tlb fs). It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k. So as long as we are changing things, let's not hard-code the 12 shift thing everywhere. Two things to consider: - host should pass its base page size to guest this can be a separate patch and for now we can fall back on 12 bit if not there -...

...and password when logging into network drives. Why does it take Microsoft so long to get this right? Win9x/ME won't let you change the username, but it does atleast use the Windows login name. WinNT and maybe Win2K do let you change the username. But now WinXP has regressed to behaviour that is sillier than all of them. Not only is the username box disabled, the default user name is *different* to the username you login to WinXP with. Now there are workarounds. But they seem pretty dodgy to me. 1. Usually (not always) we find we can use "Map network drive..." to set the username and p...

...te: > One of the issues of current balloon is the 4k page size > assumption. For example if you free a huge page you > have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host. > Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g. > when it's using huge tlb fs). > It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k. I completely agree with you that we should be able to pass a hugepage as a single chunk. Also we shouldn't assume that host and guest have the same page size. I think we can come up with a scheme that actually lets us encode that into a 64-bit wo...

...issues of current balloon is the 4k page size >> assumption. For example if you free a huge page you >> have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host. >> Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g. >> when it's using huge tlb fs). >> It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k. > I completely agree with you that we should be able to pass a hugepage > as a single chunk. Also we shouldn't assume that host and guest have > the same page size. I think we can come up with a scheme that actually > lets us encode th...

...s of current balloon is the 4k page size > > assumption. For example if you free a huge page you > > have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host. > > Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g. > > when it's using huge tlb fs). > > It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k. > > I completely agree with you that we should be able to pass a hugepage > as a single chunk. Also we shouldn't assume that host and guest have > the same page size. I think we can come up with a scheme that actually > lets us enc...

...s of current balloon is the 4k page size > > assumption. For example if you free a huge page you > > have to split it up and pass 4k chunks to host. > > Quite often host can't free these 4k chunks at all (e.g. > > when it's using huge tlb fs). > > It's even sillier for architectures with base page size >4k. > > I completely agree with you that we should be able to pass a hugepage > as a single chunk. Also we shouldn't assume that host and guest have > the same page size. I think we can come up with a scheme that actually > lets us enc...

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Esta =?ISO-8859-1?Q?=E9?= uma parte de mensagem assinada digitalmente Url : http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20070523/441a4928/attachment.pgp

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 01:40:28PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > From: Liang Li <liang.z.li at intel.com> > 1) allocating pages (6.5%) > 2) sending PFNs to host (68.3%) > 3) address translation (6.1%) > 4) madvise (19%) > > This patch optimizes step 2) by transfering pages to the host in > chunks. A chunk consists of guest physically continuous pages, and > it is

On Fri, Mar 03, 2017 at 01:40:28PM +0800, Wei Wang wrote: > From: Liang Li <liang.z.li at intel.com> > 1) allocating pages (6.5%) > 2) sending PFNs to host (68.3%) > 3) address translation (6.1%) > 4) madvise (19%) > > This patch optimizes step 2) by transfering pages to the host in > chunks. A chunk consists of guest physically continuous pages, and > it is

...for example. b) >supporing legacy and discontinue or nonupgradeable products that are MP3 >only will need to know. Locking the field is fine.. but I think this goes back to separating the front-end from the back-end. Listing it in the directory listings is just silly IMHO. It's even sillier if the admin only wants to support technology X, as it would just be the same redundant information repeated over and over for every station, wasting screen real estate and bandwidth both. >And of course, if you think that people don't care about quality at >lower bitrates, then I disa...

> It may be meaningless to most listeners, but having it tracked (and > public-domain) is valuable to admins and marketing types alike, if your > goals lean that way. That's what logs are for. This is not a public log. Things are not tracked over time. The information is only valid for a 'ttl' period. >Froma marketing angle, you might even argue the other way, that

...ion there. The directory is a directory, and it will never be a substitute for the broadcasters webpages. > Locking the field is fine.. but I think this goes back to separating the > front-end from the back-end. Listing it in the directory listings is just > silly IMHO. It's even sillier if the admin only wants to support > technology X, as it would just be the same redundant information repeated > over and over for every station, wasting screen real estate and bandwidth both. Ah, in general I'm not dicussing here what's shown on screen. Only how the information i...

Here are patches to do offline deduplication for Btrfs. It works well for the cases it''s expected to, I''m looking for feedback on the ioctl interface and such, I''m well aware there are missing features for the userspace app (like being able to set a different blocksize). If this interface is acceptable I will flesh out the userspace app a little more, but I believe the