From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42889) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWRbF-0004hE-VQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:20:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1fWRbF-0002Lk-5I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 22 Jun 2018 15:20:01 -0400 References: <1528866321-23886-1-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <1528866321-23886-5-git-send-email-thuth@redhat.com> <20180613133840.GK24528@stefanha-x1.localdomain> <20180613134452.GU19901@redhat.com> <20180613151942.GC19901@redhat.com> <87k1r24quk.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> <20180619171539.0adc90d6.cohuck@redhat.com> <20180622181108.GY7451@localhost.localdomain> From: Thomas Huth Message-ID: Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2018 21:19:56 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180622181108.GY7451@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH 4/4] qemu-options: Do not show -enable-kvm and -enable-hax in the docs anymore List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eduardo Habkost , Paolo Bonzini Cc: Cornelia Huck , Markus Armbruster , "=?UTF-8?Q?Daniel_P._Berrang=c3=a9?=" , zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com, Ben Warren , qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi On 22.06.2018 20:11, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Tue, Jun 19, 2018 at 06:16:33PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 19/06/2018 17:15, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>> Why does a user have to know how to enable KVM? Oh, because our default >>>> is "run this guest much slower than necessary". Great! >>> Should we try again to default to a better accelerator, if possible? I >>> don't quite recall why we didn't do so the last time that came up... >>> was it tests? >> >> My plan was to create qemu-{kvm,hax,hvf,whpx} binaries that default to a >> better accelerator, and leave qemu-system-* as defaulting to TCG. This >> matches what distributions already do. > > Why is this better than using KVM by default if it's available? The answer is (as almost always): Compatibility with migration. Nobody dares to sacrifice that chicken :-( Thomas