On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 05:23:32PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 01/23/2012 05:03 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
The qemu32/qemu64 models are weird in that the exact combination of CPUID flags does not match any actual processor. kvm32 and kvm64 are a better match when not using TCG. Use them when -cpu is only needed to hardcode a 32-bit guest arch or for kvmclock.
I don't think we can do this as it means the guest CPU may change unexpectedly for existing domains. A 32b domain started on current libvirt would see qemu32, while the same domain started after this patch would see kvm32. Also, IIUC, kvm32 is a fairly newly introduced CPU type for KVM - ie most deployments of KVM won't support it.
Ok, I'll redo this patch with just kvm64. As the wrong subject in 0/3 show, it was an afterthought.
Is kvm64 actually any more widely supported than kvm32 ? I though they were all fairly new. If I'm wrong, then we could trivially provide a kvm32, by using the kvm64 model, and subtracting the the "long mode" CPU flag. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|