[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49011AD7.7000901@zytor.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:46:15 -0700
From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To: Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC: akataria@...are.com, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Daniel Hecht <dhecht@...are.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip tsc synchronization checks if CONSTANT_TSC bit is
set.
Andi Kleen wrote:
>> As far as skipping the check, it makes sense for me in the case of known
>> virtualization platforms; a CPU feature bit, real or synthetic, is a
>> very clean way to do that.
>
> I don't think adding detection for non PV Hypervisors is anywhere clean
> Even if it's only VMware today, tomorrow it will be a few more
> and long term you might need to support all of the obscuro hypervisors
> that are out there. Just seems like a slippery slope. Either it's
> paravirtual or it's not, but it should attempt to be both. If the hypervisor
> doesn't emulate TSC well enough that the native code works it's entirely
> reasonable to let it use some other timer, like it has been always
> done in the past.
That is at least to some degree nonsense, simply because we are all well
down that particular "slippery slope": we have hardware blacklists and
whitelists, CPU-specific workarounds, and so on all over the place, and
in that sense a hypervisor really isn't different than another hardware
platform.
-hpa
--
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