|
Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: paravirt time source: msg#00625emulators.kvm.devel
> > >I've updated this patch and switched to using a scale/shift >like Xen is >doing, but I must admit, I don't understand how it helps adjtime. I >poked around a bit and it wasn't obvious. I think the reason is that Xen can't use FP to avoid FP save/restore at VM Exit time, while PV guest can use FP if want. No matter scale/shift or FP, hypervisor need to guarantee the time is accurate enough for years and no overflow. A server may run for couple years:-) > >Why is having {mult=1<<22, shift=22} better for adjtime than {mult=1, >shift=0}? > To avoid overflow after long run. (at least Xen/IA64 is for that purpose). thx,eddie ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by DB2 Express Download DB2 Express C - the FREE version of DB2 express and take control of your XML. No limits. Just data. Click to get it now. http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/db2/ |
|
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| Previous by Date: | Re: A testing for KVM: 00625, Dong, Eddie |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: [patch] wrong tlb flush order: 00625, Avi Kivity |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 5/5] KVM: paravirt time sourcei: 00625, Anthony Liguori |
| Next by Thread: | Re: [PATCH 0/5] KVM paravirt_ops implementation: 00625, Jeremy Fitzhardinge |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |
| News | FAQ | advertise |