From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: KVM Guest Detection Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2015 17:12:02 +0100 Message-ID: <54D8DC52.9030102@redhat.com> References: <54D51F29.2000305@canonical.com> <54D8B579.9070502@redhat.com> <54D8C616.6060205@canonical.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Chris J Arges , kvm@vger.kernel.org Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:43359 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932339AbbBIQMJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Feb 2015 11:12:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: <54D8C616.6060205@canonical.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 09/02/2015 15:37, Chris J Arges wrote: > > Why do you need that? If you are disabling something if you are on a > > virtualized platform, then that is most of the time (and I am not saying > > always only because of things like microcode.service) wrong. > > A use-case is disabling KSM if running inside an L1 guest. But even that might not make sense if KSM is disable in L0, I think. BTW, I think Fedora has disabled KSM by default. Paolo > This would be > changed to ensure better defaults rather than work around issues. The > qemu-kvm packaging in Ubuntu enables KSM by default if you install the > package. If we are attempting to do things like nested guests, then it > may make sense to disable KSM when installing qemu-kvm in the L1 guest. > Another solution to this issue is to not enable KSM in the package and > let the user configure this when necessary.