On 07/27/2017 01:46 AM, Gustavo Lima Chaves wrote:
> * 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?
I use the ivshmem-net device and NAT to access the internet from the
non-root cell. This allows me to use NTP.

Another quick hack could be to provide a timestamp as kernel parameter.
Not really accurate, though.

  Ralf
> 

-- 
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.

Reply via email to