On 8/20/07, malc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Luca Tettamanti wrote:
>
> > Il Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 10:31:26PM +0300, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
> >> Luca wrote:
> >>> On 8/19/07, Luca Tettamanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>>
> +static uint64_t qemu_next_deadline(void) {
> >
On Mon, 20 Aug 2007, Luca Tettamanti wrote:
> Il Sun, Aug 19, 2007 at 10:31:26PM +0300, Avi Kivity ha scritto:
>> Luca wrote:
>>> On 8/19/07, Luca Tettamanti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>
+static uint64_t qemu_next_deadline(void) {
+uint64_t nearest_delta_us = ULLONG_MAX;
+
Avi Kivity wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
>>> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts
>>> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile
>>> if it
>>> introduces extra complexity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching t
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Paul Brook wrote:
>
>>> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts
>>> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile if it
>>> introduces extra complexity.
>>>
>> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching thi
Paul Brook wrote:
> > Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts
> > something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile if it
> > introduces extra complexity.
>
> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the first
> place?
Insig
>>> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually
>impacts
>>> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile
if
>it
>>> introduces extra complexity.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the
>first
>> place?
>>
>
>Accurac
Paul Brook wrote:
>> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts
>> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile if it
>> introduces extra complexity.
>>
>
>
> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the first
> place?
> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts
> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile if it
> introduces extra complexity.
If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the first
place?
Paul
Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Avi Kivity wrote:
>
> In this case the dyn-tick minimum res will be 1msec. I believe it should
> work ok since this is the case without any dyn-tick.
>
>
Actually minimum resolution depends on host HZ setting, but - yes -
essential
Avi Kivity wrote:
> >>>In this case the dyn-tick minimum res will be 1msec. I believe it should
> >>>work ok since this is the case without any dyn-tick.
> >>>
> >>Actually minimum resolution depends on host HZ setting, but - yes -
> >>essentially you have the same behaviour of the "unix" tim
10 matches
Mail list logo
