[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <YHctCJDfeTq4zCVn@google.com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2021 17:57:28 +0000
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@...cent.com>,
Jim Mattson <jmattson@...gle.com>,
Joerg Roedel <joro@...tes.org>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ibm.com>,
Michael Tokarev <mjt@....msk.ru>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/7] KVM: Fix tick-based vtime accounting on x86
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 13 2021 at 11:29, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > This is an alternative to Wanpeng's series[*] to fix tick-based accounting
> > on x86. The approach for fixing the bug is identical: defer accounting
> > until after tick IRQs are handled. The difference is purely in how the
> > context tracking and vtime code is refactored in order to give KVM the
> > hooks it needs to fix the x86 bug.
> >
> > x86 compile tested only, hence the RFC. If folks like the direction and
> > there are no unsolvable issues, I'll cross-compile, properly test on x86,
> > and post an "official" series.
>
> I like the final outcome of this, but we really want a small set of
> patches first which actually fix the bug and is easy to backport and
> then the larger consolidation on top.
>
> Can you sort that out with Wanpeng please?
Will do.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists