From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33310) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XcKwY-0007B5-3g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:08:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XcKwR-00089j-TI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:08:14 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:40885) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XcKwR-00089e-MJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 09 Oct 2014 17:08:07 -0400 Message-ID: <5436F933.8080204@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 09 Oct 2014 23:08:03 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1412711059-12524-1-git-send-email-wei@redhat.com> <543453D9.8020706@redhat.com> <54345843.8070703@redhat.com> <54345CC8.8050806@redhat.com> <54348850.9080808@redhat.com> <5434EC14.5060806@redhat.com> <5436EE6A.6030705@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5436EE6A.6030705@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/1] target-i386: prevent users from setting threads>1 for AMD CPUs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Wei Huang , afaerber@suse.de, ehabkost@redhat.com Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Il 09/10/2014 22:22, Wei Huang ha scritto: > > Given that back-ward compatibility is a concern, will the following work? > > 1. Instead of bailing out, print a warning message (e.g. to log file via > error_report) in QEMU. > 2. [optional] Eduardo Habkost suggested that we can create a new machine > model which more strictly checks threads=n option for AMD. For any > existing machine config, we don't force it; but warning message still > applies. This is optional because it is a bit over-killed IMO. > 3. Gives out a warning in virt-manager as well. This is similar to > "Overcomming CPUs will slow down performance" in current virt-manager > screen. The message will read "Chosen CPU model doesn't support > hyperthreading" or something similar. I like (1) and (3). Paolo