From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/2] kvm: x86 CPU power management Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 23:21:29 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20180612184616.90838-1-mst@redhat.com> <20180614081800.GH6355@redhat.com> <2219a7fd-b496-6653-b79a-c20136727f98@redhat.com> <20180614165313.GT7451@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, "Michael S. Tsirkin" , Marcelo Tosatti , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson To: Eduardo Habkost Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20180614165313.GT7451@localhost.localdomain> Content-Language: en-US List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+gceq-qemu-devel2=m.gmane.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org On 14/06/2018 18:53, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> >> A separate issue is whether the same flag should control both >> KVM_CAP_X86_DISABLE_EXITS and the monitor/mwait CPUID leaf. Eduardo, >> what do you think? > Making "-cpu host" be affected by a host-side option is > acceptable to me. A "-cpu" option would be more appropriate if > we decide to allow monitor/mwait be enabled for other CPU models > too. Sounds fair enough, we should probably add a note in the documentation of "-cpu host" though. Paolo