From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 5/5] x86/kvm: Avoid dynamic allocation of pvclock data
 when SEV is active
Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2018 15:55:19 +0200
Message-ID: <20180911135519.GI11418@zn.tnic>
References: <1536586152.11460.40.camel@intel.com>
 <097eb5f5-2cd9-8b08-32c5-d90c8e0cbb6d@amd.com>
 <1536593297.11460.72.camel@intel.com>
 <11618b8b-4d1f-9307-35f0-3c0f0fc856ca@amd.com>
 <20180910164851.GC20286@zn.tnic>
 <3b8b4c9c-b0f6-1e08-3d26-0e146cd7189e@redhat.com>
 <20180911100142.GA11418@zn.tnic>
 <554c6fb5-0de4-5415-9970-0d09325d718b@redhat.com>
 <20180911102504.GC11418@zn.tnic>
 <cacb6865-e4ad-80c9-7482-23e480a61b0f@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: Brijesh Singh <brijesh.singh@amd.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Tom Lendacky <thomas.lendacky@amd.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Radim =?utf-8?B?S3LEjW3DocWZ?= <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cacb6865-e4ad-80c9-7482-23e480a61b0f@redhat.com>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

On Tue, Sep 11, 2018 at 01:07:06PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> If the host TSCs are unsynchronized then yes, that's what happens.  And
> you can do live migration from synchronized to unsynchronized.

Which brings us back to my original question: why would we *ever* want
to support unsynchronized TSCs in a guest? Such machines are a real
abomination for baremetal - it doesn't make *any* sense to me to have
that in guests too, if it can be helped...

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

SUSE Linux GmbH, GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
--