[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <471357E4.90904@qumranet.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Oct 2007 14:07:00 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...ranet.com>
To: Laurent Vivier <Laurent.Vivier@...l.net>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RESEND 2][PATCH 4/4] Modify KVM to update guest time accounting.
Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> But if we didn't get an interrupt in that time?
>>
>> We can clear it a bit later, after local_irq_enable() in __vcpu_run().
>> However we need a nop instruction first because "sti" keeps interrupts
>> disabled for one more instruction.
>>
>
> IMHO, I think it is better to let kvm_guest_exit() empty (you can remove it, if
> you want):
>
> 1st case:
> - unset PF_VCPU in kvm_guest_exit(), all the tick is always for system time.
> Guest time is always 0.
>
> 1st case and half:
>
> - like 1st case but we move kvm_guest_exit() as you propose and the reason of
> the interrupt is the tick interrupt. The tick is for guest time only. I think
> the probability is very low.
>
If the guest is executing for 10% of the time, the probability is
exactly 10%, no?
> 2nd case:
> - don't unset PF_VCPU in kvm_guest_exit(), all the tick is for guest time.
>
But then even execution in ->handle_exit() is accounted as guest time,
which is wrong.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists