[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <877dpiu29l.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2020 23:34:46 +0100
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Maxim Levitsky <mlevitsk@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
"open list\:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Sean Christopherson <sean.j.christopherson@...el.com>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"maintainer\:X86 ARCHITECTURE \(32-BIT AND 64-BIT\)" <x86@...nel.org>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Andrew Jones <drjones@...hat.com>,
Oliver Upton <oupton@...gle.com>,
"open list\:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] KVM: x86: implement KVM_{GET|SET}_TSC_STATE
On Tue, Dec 15 2020 at 07:59, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 11, 2020 at 10:59:59PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> So it's still true that the time advances during live migration brownout;
>> 0.1 seconds is just the final part of the live migration process. But for
>> _live_ migration there is no need to design things according to "people are
>> happy if their clock is off by 0.1 seconds only".
>
> Agree. What would be a good way to fix this?
None of what's proposed is fixing the underlying problem of wreckaging
CLOCK_REALTIME.
Stop proliferating broken behaviour and please answer the questions I
asked several times now:
1) Why has the TSC has to restart at the same value?
2) What is the technical argument that it is correct and acceptable
to wreckage CLOCK_REALTIME by doing #1?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists