RE: ...\n

[Durrant, Paul]

> -----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