From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NSqiL-0006To-TH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:39:41 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NSqiG-0006OY-JH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:39:40 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40739 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NSqiG-0006OK-9r for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:39:36 -0500 Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:1466) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NSqiG-0005uH-27 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:39:36 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f194.google.com ([209.85.221.194]) by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NSqiE-0005KE-D8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 06:39:34 -0500 Received: by qyk32 with SMTP id 32so50690qyk.4 for ; Thu, 07 Jan 2010 03:39:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4B45C7EB.1010501@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2010 05:39:23 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori 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> <4B45A851.5000401@redhat.com> <4B45AC18.8040003@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4B45AC18.8040003@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, Avi Kivity On 01/07/2010 03:40 AM, Dor Laor wrote: >> There's no simple solution except to restrict features to what was >> available on the first processors. > > What's not simple about the above 4 options? > What's a better alternative (that insures users understand it and use > it and guest msi and even skype application is happy about it)? Even if you have -cpu Nehalem, different versions of the KVM kernel module may additionally filter cpuid flags. So if you had a 2.6.18 kernel and a 2.6.33 kernel, it may be necessary to say: (2.6.33) qemu -cpu Nehalem,-syscall (2.6.18) qemu -cpu Nehalem In order to be compatible. Regards, Anthony Liguori