On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:23:32PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > On 01/23/2012 05:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >>>> > The qemu32/qemu64 models are weird in that the exact combination of > >>>> > CPUID flags does not match any actual processor. kvm32 and kvm64 are > >>>> > a better match when not using TCG. Use them when -cpu is only needed > >>>> > to hardcode a 32-bit guest arch or for kvmclock. > >>> > >>> I don't think we can do this as it means the guest CPU may change unexpectedly > >>> for existing domains. A 32b domain started on current libvirt would see qemu32, > >>> while the same domain started after this patch would see kvm32. > >Also, IIUC, kvm32 is a fairly newly introduced CPU type for KVM - ie most > >deployments of KVM won't support it. > > Ok, I'll redo this patch with just kvm64. As the wrong subject in > 0/3 show, it was an afterthought. Is kvm64 actually any more widely supported than kvm32 ? I though they were all fairly new. If I'm wrong, then we could trivially provide a kvm32, by using the kvm64 model, and subtracting the the "long mode" CPU flag. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list