> -----Original Message----- > From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> > Sent: 01 June 2022 09:57 > To: Durrant, Paul <pdurrant@xxxxxxxxxxxx>; Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>; Peter Zijlstra > <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Allister, Jack <jalliste@xxxxxxxxxx>; bp@xxxxxxxxx; diapop@xxxxxxxxxxxx; hpa@xxxxxxxxx; > jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx; kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; > metikaya@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx; rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx; sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx; > tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx; wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx > Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]...\n > > CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open > attachments unless you can confirm the sender and know the content is safe. > > > > On 6/1/22 10:54, Durrant, Paul wrote: > > That is exactly the case. This is not 'some hare-brained money > > scheme'; there is genuine concern that moving a VM from old h/w to > > new h/w may cause it to run 'too fast', breaking any such calibration > > done by the guest OS/application. I also don't have any real-world > > examples, but bugs may well be reported and having a lever to address > > them is IMO a good idea. However, I also agree with Paolo that KVM > > doesn't really need to be doing this when the VMM could do the job > > using cpufreq, so we'll pursue that option instead. (FWIW the reason > > for involving KVM was to do the freq adjustment right before entering > > the guest and then remove the cap right after VMEXIT). > > But if so, you still would submit the full feature, wouldn't you? > Yes; the commit message should have at least said that we'd follow up... but a full series would have been a better idea. > Paul, thanks for chiming in, and sorry for leaving you out of the list > of people that can help Jack with his upstreaming efforts. :) > NP. Paul > Paolo
