On 18/09/2015 17:54, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> This patch series will be disabling PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO flag and is
> RFC because I haven't explored many potential problems or tested it.
>
> [1/2] uses a different algorithm in the guest to start counting from 0.
> [2/2] stops exposing PVCLOCK_CO
[My mailbox filled between yours two emails, so I have pasted the latter
one from archives and replied to a wrong one.]
2015-09-21 21:42-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> 2015-09-21 19:37-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
>> Enable counts-from-zero on MSR_KVM_SYSTEM_TIME_NEW:
>> -> Figure out whats wrong with differ
2015-09-21 19:37-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:00:39AM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2015-09-21 17:53-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
>> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:00:27PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> >> so I thought about other problems with
>> >> PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO ... have
> So either:
>
> Proceed with guest solution:
> -> Make sure the overflow can't happen (and write down why not in the
> code). Don't assume a small delta between kvmclock values of vcpus.
> -> Handle stable -> non-stable kvmclock transition.
> -> kvmclock counts from zero should not depend on stab
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 12:00:39AM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-09-21 17:53-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:00:27PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> 2015-09-21 12:52-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> >> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:12:10PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> >> 2015-09
2015-09-21 17:53-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:00:27PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2015-09-21 12:52-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
>> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:12:10PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> >> 2015-09-20 19:57-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
>> >>> Is it counting from zero that br
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:00:27PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-09-21 12:52-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:12:10PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> 2015-09-20 19:57-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> >>> Is it counting from zero that breaks SLES10?
> >>
> >> Not by itself, treatin
2015-09-21 12:52-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:12:10PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2015-09-20 19:57-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
>>> Is it counting from zero that breaks SLES10?
>>
>> Not by itself, treating MSR_KVM_SYSTEM_TIME as one-shot initializer did.
>> The guest wants to w
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 05:12:10PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-09-20 19:57-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> This patch series will be disabling PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO flag and is
> >> RFC because I haven't explored many potential
2015-09-21 17:12+0200, Radim Krčmář:
> 2015-09-20 19:57-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> > On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> This patch series will be disabling PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO flag and is
>>> RFC because I haven't explored many potential problems or tested it.
>>
2015-09-20 19:57-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> This patch series will be disabling PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO flag and is
>> RFC because I haven't explored many potential problems or tested it.
>
> The justification to disable PVCLOCK_COUNT
On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 05:54:28PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> This patch series will be disabling PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO flag and is
> RFC because I haven't explored many potential problems or tested it.
The justification to disable PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO is because you
haven't explored pote
This patch series will be disabling PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO flag and is
RFC because I haven't explored many potential problems or tested it.
[1/2] uses a different algorithm in the guest to start counting from 0.
[2/2] stops exposing PVCLOCK_COUNTS_FROM_ZERO in the hypervisor.
A viable alternati
13 matches
Mail list logo
