Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-06 Thread Dor Laor
On Thu, 2008-03-06 at 14:56 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> The thing I'm trying to get at is a quantitative statement about why > >> moving the pit into the kernel is the right thing. I'll try to give > >> the patches a try myself in the next couple of days. I don't

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-06 Thread Anthony Liguori
Avi Kivity wrote: > >> The thing I'm trying to get at is a quantitative statement about why >> moving the pit into the kernel is the right thing. I'll try to give >> the patches a try myself in the next couple of days. I don't think >> it's obvious that it's the right thing to do without some

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-05 Thread Dor Laor
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 17:05 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Dor Laor wrote: > > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 19:30 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> > >> Playing a movie is better than any benchmark; it reflects actual user > >> experience in a real and important use case. Benchmarks are substitutes

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-05 Thread Anthony Liguori
Dor Laor wrote: > On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 19:30 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> >> Playing a movie is better than any benchmark; it reflects actual user >> experience in a real and important use case. Benchmarks are substitutes >> for real use cases, not the goal of the optimization. >> >> >

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-05 Thread Dor Laor
On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 19:30 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote: > Anthony Liguori wrote: > > Playing a movie is a bit subjective. I presume you're talking about the > > standard HAL as presumably the ACPI HAL is using the pm timer? > > > > ACPI HAL uses the apic timer, IIRC; perhaps the pm timer as wel

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-05 Thread Avi Kivity
Anthony Liguori wrote: > Playing a movie is a bit subjective. I presume you're talking about the > standard HAL as presumably the ACPI HAL is using the pm timer? > ACPI HAL uses the apic timer, IIRC; perhaps the pm timer as well. > So the two cases I'm hearing where timer accuracy should imp

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-05 Thread Anthony Liguori
Dor Laor wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 18:50 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Dor Laor wrote: >> >> I thought there was some discussion about whether -tdf was every useful >> in practice? >> > > It works. > Just try to play a movie in windows standard HAL with and w/o -tdf > --no-i

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-05 Thread Dor Laor
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 18:50 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Dor Laor wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 09:52 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > > > >> Yang, Sheng wrote: > >> > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Here is the last in-kernel PIT patch for KVM. The mainly change from last > >>> version is the su

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Yang, Sheng
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 12:25:07 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > On Wednesday 05 March 2008 08:50:24 Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> So how do we measure the benefits of an in-kernel PIT? > > > > On the time accuracy side, one typical example is in RHEL5 32E guest, > > time flows ver

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Anthony Liguori
Yang, Sheng wrote: > On Wednesday 05 March 2008 08:50:24 Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> So how do we measure the benefits of an in-kernel PIT? >> > > On the time accuracy side, one typical example is in RHEL5 32E guest, time > flows very slow compared to the host > (https://sourceforge.net/t

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Yang, Sheng
On Wednesday 05 March 2008 08:50:24 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Dor Laor wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 09:52 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Yang, Sheng wrote: > >>> Hi > >>> > >>> Here is the last in-kernel PIT patch for KVM. The mainly change from > >>> last version is the supporting to save/r

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Anthony Liguori
Dor Laor wrote: > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 09:52 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> Yang, Sheng wrote: >> >>> Hi >>> >>> Here is the last in-kernel PIT patch for KVM. The mainly change from last >>> version is the supporting to save/restore. I also tested live migration. >>> >>> The other mod

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Dor Laor
On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 09:52 -0600, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Yang, Sheng wrote: > > Hi > > > > Here is the last in-kernel PIT patch for KVM. The mainly change from last > > version is the supporting to save/restore. I also tested live migration. > > > > The other modifies including some date struc

Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Anthony Liguori
Yang, Sheng wrote: > Hi > > Here is the last in-kernel PIT patch for KVM. The mainly change from last > version is the supporting to save/restore. I also tested live migration. > > The other modifies including some date structure changed to be better for > supporting the save/restore. I moved the

[kvm-devel] [PATCH 0/6] In kernel PIT patch

2008-03-04 Thread Yang, Sheng
Hi Here is the last in-kernel PIT patch for KVM. The mainly change from last version is the supporting to save/restore. I also tested live migration. The other modifies including some date structure changed to be better for supporting the save/restore. I moved the PIT timer to outside of channe