Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Thu, 10 Dec 2020 13:14:17 +0100
From:   Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@redhat.com>,
        Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@redhat.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Jim Mattson <jmattson@google.com>,
        Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@tencent.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>,
        Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@intel.com>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        Joerg Roedel <joro@8bytes.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>,
        Oliver Upton <oupton@google.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: implement KVM_{GET|SET}_TSC_STATE
Message-ID: <20201210121417.GN2414@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
References: <20201203171118.372391-1-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <20201203171118.372391-2-mlevitsk@redhat.com>
 <87a6uq9abf.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <1dbbeefc7c76c259b55582468ccd3aab35a6de60.camel@redhat.com>
 <87im9dlpsw.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
 <875z5d5x9m.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <b6e0656b-4e3f-cf47-5ec9-eead44b2f2e9@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b6e0656b-4e3f-cf47-5ec9-eead44b2f2e9@redhat.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Thu, Dec 10, 2020 at 12:42:36PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 07/12/20 18:41, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Right this happens still occasionally, but for quite some time this is
> > 100% firmware sillyness and not a fundamental property of the hardware
> > anymore.
> 
> It's still a fundamental property of old hardware.  Last time I tried to
> kill support for processors earlier than Core 2, I had to revert it. That's
> older than Nehalem.

Core2 doesn't use TSC for timekeeping anyway. KVM shouldn't either.