On Fri, Jun 22, 2018 at 03:06:59PM +0200, Kashyap Chamarthy wrote:
> (Cc: Thomas Huth)
>
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:18:00AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > IMHO this really shouldn't be under the -realtime flag. I don't think
> > the -realtime flag should ever have been introd
(Cc: Thomas Huth)
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 09:18:00AM +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
[...]
> IMHO this really shouldn't be under the -realtime flag. I don't think
> the -realtime flag should ever have been introduced, and we certainly
> shouldn't add more stuff under it.
>
> "-realtime" is ref
On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 03:32:27PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 02:37:28AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 07:34:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:47:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > This adds abi
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 02:37:28AM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 07:34:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:47:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > This adds ability to expose host CPU power management capabilities to
> > > guests. Fo
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 10:32:00PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/06/2018 17:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> >> "-cpu" is certainly wrong for KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS. "-cpu" is a
> >> device option, while this is about host behavior. "-realtime"'s name is
> >> awful, but I still think it's
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:40:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/06/2018 10:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > I don't think
> > the -realtime flag should ever have been introduced, and we certainly
> > shouldn't add more stuff under it.
> >
> > "-realtime" is referring to a very specific use
On 14/06/2018 18:53, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>>
>> A separate issue is whether the same flag should control both
>> KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS and the monitor/mwait CPUID leaf. Eduardo,
>> what do you think?
> Making "-cpu host" be affected by a host-side option is
> acceptable to me. A "-cpu" opti
On 14/06/2018 17:44, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
>> "-cpu" is certainly wrong for KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS. "-cpu" is a
>> device option, while this is about host behavior. "-realtime"'s name is
>> awful, but I still think it's the best place for this option. Maybe we
>> could call it "-realtime p
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:40:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/06/2018 10:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > I don't think
> > the -realtime flag should ever have been introduced, and we certainly
> > shouldn't add more stuff under it.
> >
> > "-realtime" is referring to a very specific use
On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:40:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/06/2018 10:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> > I don't think
> > the -realtime flag should ever have been introduced, and we certainly
> > shouldn't add more stuff under it.
> >
> > "-realtime" is referring to a very specific use
On 14/06/2018 10:18, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
> I don't think
> the -realtime flag should ever have been introduced, and we certainly
> shouldn't add more stuff under it.
>
> "-realtime" is referring to a very specific use case, while the
> properties listed under it are all general purpose featu
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:47:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This adds ability to expose host CPU power management capabilities to
> guests. For intel guests, this is sufficient for guest to enable
> low power CPU power management. For AMD guests it isn't sufficient,
> deeper C-states are
On Wed, Jun 13, 2018 at 07:34:53PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:47:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > This adds ability to expose host CPU power management capabilities to
> > guests. For intel guests, this is sufficient for guest to enable
> > low power CPU pow
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 09:47:11PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> This adds ability to expose host CPU power management capabilities to
> guests. For intel guests, this is sufficient for guest to enable
> low power CPU power management. For AMD guests it isn't sufficient,
> deeper C-states are
On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 12:18:03PM -0700, no-re...@patchew.org wrote:
> Checking PATCH 1/2: kvm: support -realtime cpu-pm=on|off...
> WARNING: line over 80 characters
> #85: FILE: target/i386/kvm.c:1401:
> +error_report("kvm: guest stopping CPU not supported: %s",
> strerror(-ret));
>
Hi,
This series seems to have some coding style problems. See output below for
more information:
Type: series
Message-id: 20180612184616.90838-1-...@redhat.com
Subject: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/2] kvm: x86 CPU power management
=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash
BASE=base
n=1
total=$(git log
This adds ability to expose host CPU power management capabilities to
guests. For intel guests, this is sufficient for guest to enable
low power CPU power management. For AMD guests it isn't sufficient,
deeper C-states are entered using System-IO.
mwait based power management is tied closely to sp
17 matches
Mail list logo
