* Gustavo Lima Chaves <[email protected]> [2017-07-26 15:53:45 -0700]:
> * Jan Kiszka <[email protected]> [2017-07-26 07:38:41 +0200]: > > [...] > > > >> Valentine > > > > > > That's interesting. So we kidnap one of those timers to the hypervisor > > > only (since the cells are using APIC timers and are good with them) and > > > gain timers on that level, right? Leaving the root cell out of the way on > > > the watchdog task looks safer for me as well (reading through the > > > thread). We could have policies to reload cells even without > > > participation of the root one. Has anyone experimented with those > > > different clocks on x86 already? > > > > > > > In this last comments, I was not talking about a timer but a clock. We > > already share the PM "Timer" (which is a clock in reality) across all > > cells (because it is read-only and trivially handed out via PIO access > > masks). We could also use it in the hypervisor on x86 in order to gain a > > Do you say it is read-only because we only see an inl() call on that > address at timing.c or because any write would be Jailhouse-blocked (I > could not find any code doing said block, but maybe I missed it)? > > I also ask that targeting another thing: would it be trivial, as the > code is, to enable the RTC region on both root and inmate cell, so > that an inmate Linux is given a permanent clock as well? I'm doing the > test now, but just in case... INTx sharing is the issue here, I guess, ugh. Any clues on how to provide non "Jan 1 1970" dates for Linux inmates? -- Gustavo Lima Chaves Intel - Open Source Technology Center -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Jailhouse" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
