Re: [PATCH] KVM: X86: Allow userspace to define the microcode version

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

 



On April 24, 2018 1:09:00 AM EDT, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 24/04/2018 05:14, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
>> You would need to include the microcode version in the migration
>stream.
>> 
>> But this brings another point - what if we want to manifest certain
>> new CPUID bits?
>
>You don't do that across migration.  Generally if you want to do live
>migration and you set up the guest to know everything about the host
>(down to the microcode level), you should make sure your host are
>pretty
>much identical.

I understand how it ought to be but sadly the cloud vendors have a mix of hardware.


With the retpoline/IBRS support (like what RH kernel has) you could migrate from Skylake to Broadwell and switching over from IBRS to retpoline would be good.

Hence asking about this.

>
>Paolo





[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]

  Powered by Linux