RE: ...\n

[Durrant, Paul]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: 31 May 2022 15:44
> To: Allister, Jack <jalliste@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: bp@xxxxxxxxx; diapop@xxxxxxxxxxxx; hpa@xxxxxxxxx; jmattson@xxxxxxxxxx; joro@xxxxxxxxxx;
> kvm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; metikaya@xxxxxxxxxxxx; mingo@xxxxxxxxxx;
> pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx; rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx; sean.j.christopherson@xxxxxxxxx; tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx; wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx; x86@xxxxxxxxxx
> 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