On 02/29/2012 12:28 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: > > > On 29.02.2012, at 18:50, Scott Wood <scottw...@freescale.com> wrote: > >> On 02/28/2012 08:16 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> When we know that we're running inside of a KVM guest, we don't have to >>> worry about synchronizing timebases between different CPUs, since the >>> host already took care of that. >>> >>> This fixes CPU overcommit scenarios where vCPUs could hang forever trying >>> to sync each other while not being scheduled. >>> >>> Reported-by: Stuart Yoder <b08...@freescale.com> >>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> >> >> This should apply to any hypervisor, not just KVM. > > Sure, but do you have a generic function to evaluate that? :)
The presence of a hypervisor node without testing compatible. Might not get them all, but at least it will cover more than just KVM. >> Which platforms are you seeing this on? If it's on Freescale chips, >> U-Boot should be doing the sync and Linux should never do it, even in >> the absence of a hypervisor. > > This is on e500mc. On e500mc Linux should never by trying to sync the timebase. If it is, let's fix that. -Scott -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
