* Dor Laor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Afterwards we'll need to compensate the lost alarm signals to the
> guests by using one of
> - hrtimers to inject the lost interrupts for specific guests. The
> problem this will increase the overall load.
> - Injecting several virtual irq to the guests
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >( for this to work on my system i have added a 'hyper' clocksource
> > hypercall API for KVM guests to use - this is needed instead of the
> > running-to-slowly TSC. )
> >
>
> What's the problem with the TSC? The only issue I'm aware of is that
>
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:25 -0800, Dor Laor wrote:
> This is great news for PV guests.
>
> Never-the-less we still need to improve our full virtualized guest
> support.
Full virtualized guests, which have their own dyntick support, are fine
as long as we provide local apic emulation for them.
I
>* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > dyntick-enabled guest:
>> > - reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
>> > (currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
>>
>> yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
>> host and the guest. (but it's
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
host and the guest. (bu
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dyntick-enabled guest:
> > - reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
> > (currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
>
> yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
> host and the guest. (but it's more
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that kvm could benefit greatly from dyntick:
>
> dyntick-enabled host:
> - generate virtual interrupts at whatever HZ the guest programs its
> timers, be it 100, 250, 1000 or whatever
> - avoid expensive vmexits due to useless timer inte
Avi Kivity wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
You do not need dynticks for this actually. Simple no-tick-on-idle
like Xen has works well enough.
While you're modifying the timer code, you
It occurs to me that kvm could benefit greatly from dyntick:
dyntick-enabled host:
- generate virtual interrupts at whatever HZ the guest programs its
timers, be it 100, 250, 1000 or whatever
- avoid expensive vmexits due to useless timer interrupts
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on
9 matches
Mail list logo
