On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 17:31 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:12:36PM -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:04 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
Usually nobody usually thinks about that
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:12:36PM -0200, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:04 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and
specially),
but kvmclock can be
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 19:04 -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and
specially),
but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
It happens in two scenarios:
1.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and specially),
but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
It happens in two scenarios:
1. host too old.
2. we passed -kvmclock to our -cpu parameter.
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 07:04:01PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 09:03:46AM -0500, Glauber Costa wrote:
Usually nobody usually thinks about that scenario (me included and
specially),
but kvmclock can be actually disabled in the host.
It happens in two
