On 01/23/2012 05:30 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> 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.
commit d1cd4bf41906980434bee1c6656e8aeb9a132df3
Author: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
Date: Thu Aug 20 23:34:17 2009 +0200
introduce kvm64 CPU
In addition to the TCG based qemu64 type let's introduce a kvm64 CPU type,
which is the least common denominator of all KVM-capable x86-CPUs
(based on Intel Pentium 4 Prescott). It can be used as a base type
for migration.
Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@xxxxxxx>
Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@xxxxxxxxxx>
It is in RHEL6, but let's just scrap this patch until (at least) after 0.9.10.
Paolo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list