On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 03:03:46AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 09:55:08AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 11:39:57AM +0300, Dor Laor wrote: > > > On 07/01/2012 06:08 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > >Support the new PV EOI flag in kvm - it recently got merged > > > >into kvm.git. Set by default with -cpu kvm. > > > >Set for -cpu qemu by adding +kvm_pv_eoi. > > > >Clear by adding -kvm_pv_eoi to -cpu option. > > > > > > What about adding them to our cpu models? > > > It should go w/o saying for all models (SandyBridge, OpteronGx,..) > > > but there is the issue of backward compat. I remember we had a > > > discussion about pair the models w/ the current machine type (-M) but > > > I don't remember the final call. > > > > > > What's your take Eduardo? > > > > We can really add it, but only after adding the infra-structure to allow > > "versioned" CPU models (with per-machine-type aliases for backwards > > compatibility with older machine types). > > > > (The current status of this is "I am going to implement it", but there's > > no code do do that yet). > > OK so I'll just wait and you'll make it happen? Yes, when we start supporting versioned CPU models, I can send a patch to add kvm_pv_eoi to the existing models on newer machine-types. > Also is libvirt support needed? Only if we want to allow libvirt to control the feature directly. Otherwise, it would be simply controlled just by the machine-type + cpu-model combination. In either case, it will probably be better to add libvirt support only after we have the proper QEMU<->libvirt CPU feature probing interface implemented. -- Eduardo -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
