[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <47266431.1010500@goop.org>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2007 15:52:33 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
CC: Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, tglx@...utronix.de,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au, --cc@...hat.com, avi@...amnet.com,
kvm-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glauber@....localdomain>,
Dan Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>,
Garrett Smith <garrett@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] raise tsc clocksource rating
Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Zachary Amsden <zach@...are.com> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 20:10 -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>>
>>> From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glauber@....localdomain>
>>>
>>> tsc is very good time source (when it does not have drifts, does not
>>> change it's frequency, i.e. when it works), so it should have its rating
>>> raised to a value greater than, or equal 400.
>>>
>>> Since it's being a tendency among paravirt clocksources to use values
>>> around 400, we should declare tsc as even better: So we use 500.
>>>
>> Why is the TSC better than a paravirt clocksource? In our case this
>> is definitely inaccurate. Paravirt clocksources should be preferred
>> to TSC, and both must be made available in hardware for platforms
>> which do not support paravirt.
>>
>
> if it's inaccurate why are you exposing it to the guest then? Native
> only uses the TSC if it's safe and accurate to do so.
>
It is used as part of the Xen clocksource as a short term extrapolator,
with correction parameters supplied by the hypervisor. It should never
be used directly.
J
-
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