Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kvm: x86 CPU power management

["Daniel P. Berrangé" <berrange@redhat.com>]

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 case, while the
> > properties listed under it are all general purpose features. Real
> > time guests just happen to be one possible use case, but it is
> > valid to use them for non-real time guests.
> > 
> > IOW, I think we should just have this as an option under -cpu or
> > some other *functionally* named option, not a option named after
> > a specific usage scenario.
> 
> "-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 power-mgmt={host|guest}".

If none of the existing ones are a suitable fit, then we should just
introduce a new CLI arg instead stuffing it into somewhere odd.

IOW, why not just "--power-mgmt host|guest"

Regards,
Daniel
-- 
|: https://berrange.com      -o-    https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :|
|: https://libvirt.org         -o-            https://fstop138.berrange.com :|
|: https://entangle-photo.org    -o-    https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :|