From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Gerd Hoffmann <kraxel@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: Houston, we have May 15, 1953 (says guest when host uses cpufreq,
 and dies)
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2009 10:15:22 +0100
Message-ID: <499D232A.7040206@redhat.com>
References: <499C206A.5050109@wpkg.org> <499C3131.3030601@codemonkey.ws> <499C3327.3090207@wpkg.org> <499C3E6E.4050807@redhat.com> <499C7196.7050001@codemonkey.ws>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Tomasz Chmielewski <mangoo@wpkg.org>,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:47210 "EHLO mx2.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1752286AbZBSJPa (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:15:30 -0500
In-Reply-To: <499C7196.7050001@codemonkey.ws>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Are you suggesting that one should use cpufreq on a CPU without a
> constant tsc?  Isn't this just asking for trouble?

Depends on the (guest) clock source ;)

tsc isn't going to do well obviously.

kvmclock is designed to handle tsc frequency changes just fine.
And with the kvm-84 kernel module it actually works correctly.

HTH,
  Gerd