On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:34:18PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get closer by adjusting the offset to
match the
On 06/16/2010 03:52 AM, Glauber Costa wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:34:18PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get closer by adjusting the offset to
match the elapsed time.
Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden zams...@redhat.com
---
On 06/15/2010 10:34 AM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get closer by adjusting the offset to
match the elapsed time.
On 06/14/2010 10:51 PM, Avi Kivity wrote:
On 06/15/2010 10:34 AM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get closer by adjusting the
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:34:18PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get closer by adjusting the offset to
match the
On 06/15/2010 02:27 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 09:34:18PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Attempt to synchronize TSCs which are reset to the same value. In the
case of a reliable hardware TSC, we can just re-use the same offset, but
on non-reliable hardware, we can get
