Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 31 Mar 2015 15:28:26 -0300 | From | Eduardo Habkost <> | Subject | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 11/15] target-s390x: New QMP command query-cpu-model |
| |
On Tue, Mar 31, 2015 at 01:21:05PM +0200, Michael Mueller wrote: > On Mon, 30 Mar 2015 17:17:21 -0300 > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@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
| |