There are buggy hosts in the wild that advertise invariant
TSC and as result host uses TSC as clocksource, but TSC on
such host sometimes sporadically jumps backwards.
This causes kvmclock to go backwards if host advertises
PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT, which turns off aggregated clock
accumulator and
Il 16/07/2014 11:52, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
There are buggy hosts in the wild that advertise invariant
TSC and as result host uses TSC as clocksource, but TSC on
such host sometimes sporadically jumps backwards.
This causes kvmclock to go backwards if host advertises
PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT,
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 16/07/2014 11:52, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
There are buggy hosts in the wild that advertise invariant
TSC and as result host uses TSC as clocksource, but TSC on
such host sometimes sporadically jumps backwards.
This causes
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:41:00 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 16/07/2014 11:52, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
There are buggy hosts in the wild that advertise invariant
TSC and as result host uses TSC as
Il 16/07/2014 15:55, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:41:00 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 16/07/2014 11:52, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
There are buggy hosts in the wild that advertise
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:16:17 +0200
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 16/07/2014 15:55, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 08:41:00 -0300
Marcelo Tosatti mtosa...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 16, 2014 at 12:18:37PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Il 16/07/2014 11:52,
Il 16/07/2014 16:51, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
I'm not sure that a per-CPU value is enough; your patch can make
the problem much less frequent of course, but I'm not sure neither
detection nor correction are 100% reliable. Your addition is
basically a faster but less reliable version of the
On Wed, 16 Jul 2014 16:55:37 +0200
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
Il 16/07/2014 16:51, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
I'm not sure that a per-CPU value is enough; your patch can make
the problem much less frequent of course, but I'm not sure
neither detection nor correction are 100%
