On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:21:05PM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:17:21 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Mar 30, 2015 at 04:28:24PM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote:
> > > This patch implements a new QMP request named 'query-cpu-model'.
> > > It returns the cpu model of cpu 0 and its backing accelerator.
> > >
> > > request:
> > > {"execute" : "query-cpu-model" }
> > >
> > > answer:
> > > {"return" : {"name": "2827-ga2", "accel": "kvm" }}
> >
> > If you are returning information about an existing CPU, why not just
> > extend the output of "query-cpus"?
> >
> > (Existing qmp_query_cpus() calls cpu_synchronize_state(), which may be
> > undesired. But in this case we could add an optional parameter to
> > disable the return of data that requires stopping the VCPU).
>
> Will the cpu_cpu_syncronize_state() really hurt in real life?
> query-cpus will be called only once a while...
>
I was just thinking about possible reasons you wouldn't want to reuse
query-cpus, and thought cpu_synchronize_state() call could be one of
them.
> I will prepare the extension of query-cpus as an option but initially
> without the optional parameter.
I agree we can simply add the new info to query-cpus without any extra
parameter, and (if really necessary) we can worry about optimizing it by
avoiding the cpu_synchronize_state() call later.
--
Eduardo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
