From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: "Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 01/10] KVM: PPC: BOOK3S: PR: Fix PURR and SPURR emulation
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 16:08:39 +0530
Message-ID: <87y51wjv0w.fsf@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1390927455-3312-1-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1390927455-3312-2-git-send-email-aneesh.kumar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <52E92D15.8000901@suse.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Cc: benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
	linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org, kvm-ppc@vger.kernel.org,
	kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
Return-path: <kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <52E92D15.8000901@suse.de>
Sender: kvm-ppc-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org

Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de> writes:

> On 01/28/2014 05:44 PM, Aneesh Kumar K.V wrote:
>> We definitely don't need to emulate mtspr, because both the registers
>> are hypervisor resource.
>
> This patch description doesn't cover what the patch actually does. It 
> changes the implementation from "always tell the guest it uses 100%" to 
> "give the guest an accurate amount of cpu time spent inside guest
> context".

Will fix that

>
> Also, I think we either go with full hyp semantics which means we also 
> emulate the offset or we go with no hyp awareness in the guest at all 
> which means we also don't emulate SPURR which is a hyp privileged
> register.

Can you clarify this ?

>
> Otherwise I like the patch :).
>

-aneesh