From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46186 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OMMx1-0003lI-R0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:12:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OMMx0-0005if-CP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:12:19 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:61304)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OMMx0-0005iL-50
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 09 Jun 2010 11:12:18 -0400
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 18:12:14 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100609151214.GC14316@redhat.com>
References: <4C0E3C46.30901@dlh.net> <4C0E3CD5.4070202@redhat.com>
	<4C0E4576.8030609@dlh.net> <4C0E46ED.5030305@redhat.com>
	<4C0E47C3.1050409@dlh.net> <4C0E484D.4060609@redhat.com>
	<4C0E492F.6060203@dlh.net> <4C0E495C.8020008@redhat.com>
	<4C0F50ED.7060109@dlh.net> <4C0FAE67.3010002@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C0FAE67.3010002@redhat.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: Live Migration of 32-bit Linux guest broken
	since	2.6.35-rc2
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Cc: Peter Lieven <pl@dlh.net>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 06:08:23PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 11:29 AM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>On 06/08/2010 04:44 PM, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >>>>-cpu host is good if you have identical machines and don't
> >>>>plan to add new ones.
> >>>
> >>>i will likely add new ones, but my plan would be to use qemu64
> >>>and then add all flags manually that
> >>>are common to all cpus in the pool.
> >>>would that be safe?
> >>
> >>Yes.
> >>
> >2 last questions:
> >
> >a) i remember that there (have been) are instructions that have a
> >high virtualization penalty.
> >are there flags that should better not be offered to a VM?
> 
> Not that I know of.
> 
rdtscp? I think it's always emulated.

--
			Gleb.