On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
> (hopefully) convert with
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 01:39:12PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
> (hopefully) convert with
Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
(hopefully) convert with NTP. In other words, kvmclock is *not* a
paravirtualized host-to-guest
Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
(hopefully) convert with NTP. In other words, kvmclock is *not* a
paravirtualized host-to-guest
On 02/09/2016 17:24, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
>> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
>> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC,
On 02/09/2016 17:24, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
>> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
>> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC,
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 06:37:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 16:51, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> vs. using a single offset as in the TSC ref page is one
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 06:37:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 16:51, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> vs. using a single offset as in the TSC ref page is one
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 06:57:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 18:55, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> > I'll change patch 4 to store the parameters and use them when accessing
> >> > the time reference counter MSR. I'll still keep the procedure that goes
> >> > through kvmclock.
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 06:57:10PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 02/09/2016 18:55, Roman Kagan wrote:
> >> > I'll change patch 4 to store the parameters and use them when accessing
> >> > the time reference counter MSR. I'll still keep the procedure that goes
> >> > through kvmclock.
On 02/09/2016 18:55, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> > I'll change patch 4 to store the parameters and use them when accessing
>> > the time reference counter MSR. I'll still keep the procedure that goes
>> > through kvmclock. It's a bit more involved for the scale, but
>> > vcpu->last_guest_tsc only
On 02/09/2016 18:55, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> > I'll change patch 4 to store the parameters and use them when accessing
>> > the time reference counter MSR. I'll still keep the procedure that goes
>> > through kvmclock. It's a bit more involved for the scale, but
>> > vcpu->last_guest_tsc only
On 02/09/2016 16:51, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> vs. using a single offset as in the TSC ref page is one nanosecond---and
>> the ref page only has a resolution of 100 ns.
>
> AFAICS it's not a
On 02/09/2016 16:51, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
>> vs. using a single offset as in the TSC ref page is one nanosecond---and
>> the ref page only has a resolution of 100 ns.
>
> AFAICS it's not a
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
> (hopefully) convert with
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
> (hopefully) convert with
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> >> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static void synic_init(struct
On Fri, Sep 02, 2016 at 04:09:42PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> >> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> >> @@ -386,7 +386,7 @@ static void synic_init(struct
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
> (hopefully) convert with
On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
> (hopefully) convert with
On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
>> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
>> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC,
On 02/09/2016 15:52, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2016 at 05:26:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
>> provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
>> kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC,
Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
(hopefully) convert with NTP. In other words, kvmclock is *not* a
paravirtualized host-to-guest
Introduce a function that reads the exact nanoseconds value that is
provided to the guest in kvmclock. This crystallizes the notion of
kvmclock as a thin veneer over a stable TSC, that the guest will
(hopefully) convert with NTP. In other words, kvmclock is *not* a
paravirtualized host-to-guest
24 matches
Mail list logo
