Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2007 schrieb Avi Kivity:
> But isn't account_system_time() called via the timer tick interrupt, and
> never directly from kvm? So in_interrupt() would always be true.
Ouch, yes. Please dont use that patch, I will make a new one.
Christian
Christian Borntraeger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
>
>> * Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Avi, Ingo, Laurent,
>>>
>>> what do you think about the following patch?
>>>
>> fine to me. I guess this should mostly be a NOP to KVM,
Am Mittwoch, 14. November 2007 schrieb Ingo Molnar:
>
> * Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Avi, Ingo, Laurent,
> >
> > what do you think about the following patch?
>
> fine to me. I guess this should mostly be a NOP to KVM, right?
Yes, currently kvm on x86 has interrupts
* Christian Borntraeger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Avi, Ingo, Laurent,
>
> what do you think about the following patch?
fine to me. I guess this should mostly be a NOP to KVM, right?
Ingo
-
This SF.net email is
Avi, Ingo, Laurent,
what do you think about the following patch?
Currently the scheduler checks for PF_VCPU to decide if this
timeslice has to be accounted as guest time. On s390 host
interrupts are not disabled during guest execution. This causes
these interrupts to be accounted as guest time.
