On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 20:41 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> > I'm not sure if this affects the TSC theory or not, but note that the
> > host and guest have 250Hz PIT configured in the config. E.g. both
> > kernels are programming the PIT to 250Hz, but guest is only
> > seeing 125Hz
> > ticks. If I "f
> I'm not sure if this affects the TSC theory or not, but note that the
> host and guest have 250Hz PIT configured in the config. E.g. both
> kernels are programming the PIT to 250Hz, but guest is only
> seeing 125Hz
> ticks. If I "fix" the lost interrupt to bring the ticks to a true
> 250Hz, wa
On Thu, 2007-06-21 at 11:23 +0800, Dong, Eddie wrote:
> >
> >One of the things that I noticed during the development of the APIC
> >patchset that was quite odd:
> >
> >1) Linux guest was programming the PIT for 4ms.
> >2) QEMU was programming the sigalarm for 1ms
> >3) SIGALARM was only delivered e
Dong, Eddie wrote:
> Yes. but I am wondering about the performance. Hypercall to get
> host time should be expansive than hardware support TSC read which is
> about 200 cycles. I may make mistake since I didn't go through the patch
> in very detail.
>
> gettimeofday is very important :-)
>
Ma
>-Original Message-
>From: Avi Kivity [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: 2007年6月21日 17:01
>To: Dong, Eddie
>Cc: Gregory Haskins; kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
>Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] A testing for KVM
>
>Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> In Xen, we virtualize TSC
Dong, Eddie wrote:
> In Xen, we virtualize TSC too to make sure the guest TSC time is
> synchronized with
> guest PIT time, so guest can see an accurate virtual time. (refer my
> presentation
> doc on Xen September summit 06.) It is good but time to time
> we see bugs due to the complicated time v
>
>One of the things that I noticed during the development of the APIC
>patchset that was quite odd:
>
>1) Linux guest was programming the PIT for 4ms.
>2) QEMU was programming the sigalarm for 1ms
>3) SIGALARM was only delivered every 8ms (probably maximum resolution
>with this setup) so the timer
>> Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> > We ran a testing against latest KVM to know its quality status.
>> > In the testing we tried to boot guests, test basic devices of
guest,
>and
>> > install guests.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks for doing this -- it is enormously useful.
>>
>> > Basic devices, Keybord,disk,
On Wed, 2007-06-13 at 11:48 +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:
> > Hi,
> > We ran a testing against latest KVM to know its quality status.
> > In the testing we tried to boot guests, test basic devices of guest, and
> > install guests.
> >
>
> Thanks for doing this -- it is enormou
Dong, Eddie wrote:
>> We found that using an hrtimer enabled host with
>> CONFIG_HZ=1000 improves
>> things. However I don't think that it's as accurate as 7
>> seconds in 20
>> minutes (that's better than 1% accuracy), so probably more work is
>> needed in qemu to correct time drift.
>>
>>
>
> We found that using an hrtimer enabled host with
> CONFIG_HZ=1000 improves
> things. However I don't think that it's as accurate as 7
> seconds in 20
> minutes (that's better than 1% accuracy), so probably more work is
> needed in qemu to correct time drift.
>
Time virtualization for HVM is alw
Zhao, Yunfeng wrote:
> Hi,
> We ran a testing against latest KVM to know its quality status.
> In the testing we tried to boot guests, test basic devices of guest, and
> install guests.
>
Thanks for doing this -- it is enormously useful.
> Basic devices, Keybord,disk,VGA, and nic works well, b
Hi,
We ran a testing against latest KVM to know its quality status.
In the testing we tried to boot guests, test basic devices of guest, and
install guests.
The commit is: 08908a44630210f97b0276f6e41ff71ec04f1308
A summary for the testing result:
Can boot most IA32/IA32e UP VMX guests, but SMP gue
13 matches
Mail list logo
