> >> Then the amount > >> of CPU cycles between timer interrupts would increase and hopefully > >> the guest can keep up. If the guest sleeps, time base could be > >> accelerated to catch up with wall clock and then set back to 1:1 rate. > > > > Can't follow you ATM, sorry. What should be slowed down then? And how > > precisely? > > I think vm_clock and everything that depends on vm_clock, also > rtc_clock should be tied to vm_clock in this mode, not host_clock.
The problem is more fundamental than that. There is no real correlation between vm_clock and the amount of code executed by the guest, especially not on timescales less than a second. Paul
