Anthony Liguori wrote:
I think there's a healthy amount of scepticism about whether tdf
really is worth it. This is why I suggested that we need to better
quantify exactly how much this patch set helps things. For instance,
a time drift test for kvm-autotest would be perfect.
tdf is ugly
Anthony Liguori wrote:
The last time I posted the KVM patch series to qemu-devel, the -tdf patch met
with
some opposition. Since today we implement timer catch-up in the in-kernel PIT
and
the in-kernel PIT is used by default, it doesn't seem all that valuable to have
timer catch-up in userspac
Anthony Liguori wrote:
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:20:41PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Currently both in-kernel PIT and even the in kernel irqchips are
not 100% bullet proof.
Of course this code is a hack, Gleb Natapov has send better fix
for PIT/RTC to qemu list.
Can
Gleb Natapov wrote:
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:20:41PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
Currently both in-kernel PIT and even the in kernel irqchips are not
100% bullet proof.
Of course this code is a hack, Gleb Natapov has send better fix for
PIT/RTC to qemu list.
Can you look into them:
ht
On Tue, Jul 22, 2008 at 08:20:41PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Currently both in-kernel PIT and even the in kernel irqchips are not
>> 100% bullet proof.
>> Of course this code is a hack, Gleb Natapov has send better fix for
>> PIT/RTC to qemu list.
>> Can you look into them:
>> http://www
Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Dor Laor wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori wrote:
>>> The last time I posted the KVM patch series to qemu-devel, the -tdf
>>> patch met with
>>> some opposition. Since today we implement timer catch-up in the
>>> in-kernel PIT and
>>> the in-kernel PIT is used by default, it doe
Dor Laor wrote:
Anthony Liguori wrote:
The last time I posted the KVM patch series to qemu-devel, the -tdf
patch met with
some opposition. Since today we implement timer catch-up in the
in-kernel PIT and
the in-kernel PIT is used by default, it doesn't seem all that
valuable to have
timer ca
Anthony Liguori wrote:
The last time I posted the KVM patch series to qemu-devel, the -tdf patch met
with
some opposition. Since today we implement timer catch-up in the in-kernel PIT
and
the in-kernel PIT is used by default, it doesn't seem all that valuable to have
timer catch-up in userspac
The last time I posted the KVM patch series to qemu-devel, the -tdf patch met
with
some opposition. Since today we implement timer catch-up in the in-kernel PIT
and
the in-kernel PIT is used by default, it doesn't seem all that valuable to have
timer catch-up in userspace too.
Removing it will
