[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4AD7754B.20701@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:17:31 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
CC: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@...cle.com>,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy.fitzhardinge@...rix.com>,
kurt.hackel@...cle.com, the arch/x86 maintainers <x86@...nel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Glauber de Oliveira Costa <gcosta@...hat.com>,
Xen-devel <xen-devel@...ts.xensource.com>,
Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@...citrix.com>,
Zach Brown <zach.brown@...cle.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
Chris Mason <chris.mason@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation
On 10/14/09 05:32, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 10/14/2009 05:00 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
>>
>>> So it's broken or disabled when that assumption is wrong? We could
>>> easily fix that now. Might even reuse the pvclock structures.
>>>
>> Well, the kernel internally makes more or less the same assumption; the
>> vsyscall clocksource is the same as the kernel's internal one. I think
>> idea is that it just drops back to something like hpet if the tsc
>> doesn't have very simple SMP characteristics.
>>
>> If the kernel could characterize the per-cpu properties of the tsc more
>> accurately, then it could use the pvclock mechanism on native.
>>
>
> It does - that's how kvm implements pvclock on the host side. See
> kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier() in arch/x86/kvm/x86.c.
The tsc clocksource currently seems a fair bit more picky though; it
doesn't attempt to sync tscs or work out their relative offsets or
rates. Which seems a bit defeatist.
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