From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NSobj-0001kw-Gv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:24:43 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NSobe-0001Yy-F0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:24:42 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=57623 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NSobe-0001Yc-Bo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:24:38 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:64399) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NSobd-0004sM-Qx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 04:24:38 -0500 Message-ID: <4B45A851.5000401@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 11:24:33 +0200 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] cpuid problem in upstream qemu with kvm References: <4B30EFDF.4060202@codemonkey.ws> <4B31F1BA.10005@redhat.com> <4B43D4E2.9050102@codemonkey.ws> <4B4402B1.1030605@redhat.com> <4B448F36.8030605@codemonkey.ws> <4B449467.4070606@redhat.com> <4B4494FC.1080907@codemonkey.ws> <4B449608.7040102@redhat.com> <4B4496E9.2030201@redhat.com> <20100106142231.GF2248@redhat.com> <4B449EE7.4050401@redhat.com> <4B44A2C6.4050504@redhat.com> <4B44A965.9040300@codemonkey.ws> <4B459550.6000202@redhat.com> <4B4598BC.4000206@redhat.com> <4B45A536.1070300@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B45A536.1070300@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: dlaor@redhat.com Cc: kvm-devel , Gleb Natapov , "Michael S. Tsirkin" , John Cooper , Alexander Graf , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 01/07/2010 11:11 AM, Dor Laor wrote: > On 01/07/2010 10:18 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 01/07/2010 10:03 AM, Dor Laor wrote: >>> >>> We can debate about the exact name/model to represent the Nehalem >>> family, I don't have an issue with that and actually Intel and Amd >>> should define it. >> >> AMD and Intel already defined their names (in cat /proc/cpuinfo). They >> don't define families, the whole idea is to segment the market. > > The idea here is to minimize the number of models we should have the > following range for Intel for example: > pentium3 - merom - penry - Nehalem - host - kvm/qemu64 > So we're supplying wide range of cpus, p3 for maximum flexibility and > migration, nehalem for performance and migration, host for maximum > performance and qemu/kvm64 for custom maid. There's no such thing as Nehalem. >>> >>> This is exactly what vmware are doing: >>> - Intel CPUs : >>> http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1991 >>> >>> >>> - AMD CPUs : >>> http://kb.vmware.com/selfservice/microsites/search.do?language=en_US&cmd=displayKC&externalId=1992 >>> >>> >> >> They don't have to deal with different qemu and kvm versions. >> > > Both our customers - the end users. It's not their problem. > IMO what's missing today is a safe and sound cpu emulation that is > simply and friendly to represent. qemu64,+popcount is not simple for > the end user. There is no reason to through it on higher level mgmt. There's no simple solution except to restrict features to what was available on the first processors. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function