From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-vmx: add module parameter to avoid trapping HLT
 instructions (v2)
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 23:42:28 +0530
Message-ID: <20101203181228.GF13515@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1291298357-5695-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
 <20101202191416.GQ10050@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
 <20101203115752.GD27994@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20101203162731.GA11725@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20101203172906.GD10050@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
 <20101203175744.GE13515@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
 <20101203175854.GF10050@sequoia.sous-sol.org>
 <4CF931D3.6000204@codemonkey.ws>
Reply-To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Chris Wright <chrisw@sous-sol.org>,
	Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.151]:46552 "EHLO
	e33.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1752542Ab0LCSMh (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:12:37 -0500
Received: from d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.227])
	by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id oB3I6s5A001347
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:06:54 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (d03av02.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.168])
	by d03relay02.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.1) with ESMTP id oB3ICaO9259936
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:12:36 -0700
Received: from d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d03av02.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id oB3ICZv4009882
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Fri, 3 Dec 2010 11:12:36 -0700
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CF931D3.6000204@codemonkey.ws>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 12:07:15PM -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> My first reaction is that it's not terribly important to account the
> non-idle time in the guest because of the use-case for this model.

Agreed ...but I was considering the larger user-base who may be surprised to see
their VMs being reported as 100% hogs when they had left it idle.

- vatsa