From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kvm: x86 CPU power management
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:53:13 -0300
Message-ID: <20180614165313.GT7451@localhost.localdomain>
References: <20180612184616.90838-1-mst@redhat.com>
	<20180614081800.GH6355@redhat.com>
	<2219a7fd-b496-6653-b79a-c20136727f98@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>,
	Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org,
	Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel2=m.gmane.org@nongnu.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <2219a7fd-b496-6653-b79a-c20136727f98@redhat.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel2=m.gmane.org@nongnu.org
Sender: "Qemu-devel"
	<qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel2=m.gmane.org@nongnu.org>
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Thu, Jun 14, 2018 at 05:40:41PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 14/06/2018 10:18, Daniel P. Berrang=E9 wrote:
> > I don't think
> > the -realtime flag should ever have been introduced, and we certainly
> > shouldn't add more stuff under it.
> >=20
> > "-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.
> >=20
> > 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.
>=20
> "-cpu" is certainly wrong for KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS. "-cpu" is a
> device option, while this is about host behavior.  "-realtime"'s name i=
s
> awful, but I still think it's the best place for this option.  Maybe we
> could call it "-realtime power-mgmt=3D{host|guest}".
>=20
> 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" option would be more appropriate if
we decide to allow monitor/mwait be enabled for other CPU models
too.

--=20
Eduardo