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) {
> >
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 this code in the
first p
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?
Accuracy i
> 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 -
essentially you have the same behaviour of
