RE: ...\n

Durrant, Paul
2022-05-31T15:39:56Z

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Sent: 31 May 2022 15:44
> To: Allister, Jack <jalliste@amazon.com>
> Cc: bp@alien8.de; diapop@amazon.co.uk; hpa@zytor.com; jmattson@google.com; joro@8bytes.org;
> kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; metikaya@amazon.co.uk; mingo@redhat.com;
> pbonzini@redhat.com; rkrcmar@redhat.com; sean.j.christopherson@intel.com; tglx@linutronix.de;
> vkuznets@redhat.com; wanpengli@tencent.com; x86@kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]...\n
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:02:36PM +0000, Jack Allister wrote:
> > The reasoning behind this is that you may want to run a guest at a
> > lower CPU frequency for the purposes of trying to match performance
> > parity between a host of an older CPU type to a newer faster one.
>
> That's quite ludicrus. Also, then it should be the host enforcing the
> cpufreq, not the guest.

I'll bite... What's ludicrous about wanting to run a guest at a lower CPU freq to minimize observable change in whatever workload it is running?

Paul