Messages in this thread | | | Subject | RE: ...\n | From | "Durrant, Paul" <> | Date | Tue, 31 May 2022 14:52:04 +0000 |
| |
> -----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
| |