From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH] kvm-vmx: add module parameter to avoid trapping HLT instructions (v2) Date: Sat, 04 Dec 2010 10:18:42 +0200 Message-ID: <4CF9F962.4030206@redhat.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> <20101203173357.GB13515@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Chris Wright , Anthony Liguori , kvm@vger.kernel.org, Marcelo Tosatti To: vatsa@linux.vnet.ibm.com Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38582 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754726Ab0LDIS7 (ORCPT ); Sat, 4 Dec 2010 03:18:59 -0500 In-Reply-To: <20101203173357.GB13515@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 12/03/2010 07:33 PM, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > On Fri, Dec 03, 2010 at 09:29:06AM -0800, Chris Wright wrote: > > That's what Marcelo's suggestion does w/out a fill thread. > > Are we willing to add that to KVM sources? > I'd rather avoid it. > I was working under the constraints of not modifying the kernel (especially > avoid adding short term hacks that become unnecessary in longer run, in this > case when kernel-based hard limits goes in). Yes. Allowing the guest to execute HLT is fine, but adding scheduling smarts to kvm is something else. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.