lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2022]   [May]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRE: ...\n
From
Date
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
> Sent: 31 May 2022 15:44
> To: Allister, Jack <jalliste@amazon.com>
> Cc: bp@alien8.de; diapop@amazon.co.uk; hpa@zytor.com; jmattson@google.com; joro@8bytes.org;
> kvm@vger.kernel.org; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; metikaya@amazon.co.uk; mingo@redhat.com;
> pbonzini@redhat.com; rkrcmar@redhat.com; sean.j.christopherson@intel.com; tglx@linutronix.de;
> vkuznets@redhat.com; wanpengli@tencent.com; x86@kernel.org
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL]...\n
>
>
> On Tue, May 31, 2022 at 02:02:36PM +0000, Jack Allister wrote:
> > The reasoning behind this is that you may want to run a guest at a
> > lower CPU frequency for the purposes of trying to match performance
> > parity between a host of an older CPU type to a newer faster one.
>
> That's quite ludicrus. Also, then it should be the host enforcing the
> cpufreq, not the guest.

I'll bite... What's ludicrous about wanting to run a guest at a lower CPU freq to minimize observable change in whatever workload it is running?

Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2022-05-31 17:40    [W:0.287 / U:0.556 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site