Dan Hecht wrote:
Yes, and regardless of whether you run your periodic timer slower than
HZ, calibrating time in a VM is always difficult due to the fact the
kernel is time sharing the physical cpu. Why not just ask the
underlying hypervisor?
Upstream Xen does just that.
I'm guessing we'll
Dan Hecht wrote:
Yes, and regardless of whether you run your periodic timer slower than
HZ, calibrating time in a VM is always difficult due to the fact the
kernel is time sharing the physical cpu. Why not just ask the
underlying hypervisor?
Upstream Xen does just that.
I'm guessing we'll
On 02/16/2007 01:51 PM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 17:46, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 17:46, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT configurable. I'm sure
that we are going to have some
Keir Fraser wrote:
> We can extend the Xen timer interface quite easily and get rid of this one
> too. In fact it doesn't *much* matter if the CONFIG_HZ differs from the Xen
> ticker rate -- we modified the Linux timer ISR to handle timer interrupts at
> arbitrary times already. The only drawback
On 16/2/07 17:46, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Keir Fraser wrote:
>> This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
>> fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT configurable. I'm sure
>> that we are going to have some nasty bugs to fix up
Keir Fraser wrote:
> This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
> fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT configurable. I'm sure
> that we are going to have some nasty bugs to fix up as a result, but we
> can't fix them until we find them! Then we can
On 16/2/07 10:54, "Andrew Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> OK, you're screwed. I agree that the process freezer is the way out of that
> one.
>
> Ingo said that he's clocked the freezer at a few milliseconds. But if it's
> any higher than that it'll need to get sped up once we convert cpu
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:47:11 + Keir Fraser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 16/2/07 10:09, "Andrew Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Are the places where the domU code references machine addresses splattered
> > all over the code? If not, they can just be wrapped with
> >
On 16/2/07 10:09, "Andrew Morton" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Are the places where the domU code references machine addresses splattered
> all over the code? If not, they can just be wrapped with
> preempt_disable/preempt_enable?
The main places where machine addresses are 'visible' are any
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Andrew Morton wrote:
> > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:14:45 -0800 Dan Hecht
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> config PREEMPT
> >>> bool "Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)"
> >>> + depends on !XEN
> >>> help
> >>> This option reduces the latency
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:00:39 -0800 "Christian Limpach" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> > Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:14:45 -0800 Dan Hecht
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>> config PREEMPT
> > >>> bool "Preemptible
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 02:00:39 -0800 Christian Limpach [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:14:45 -0800 Dan Hecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
config PREEMPT
bool Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)
+
Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
Andrew Morton wrote:
On Thu, 15 Feb 2007 22:14:45 -0800 Dan Hecht
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
config PREEMPT
bool Preemptible Kernel (Low-Latency Desktop)
+ depends on !XEN
help
This option reduces the latency of the kernel by making
all
On 16/2/07 10:09, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are the places where the domU code references machine addresses splattered
all over the code? If not, they can just be wrapped with
preempt_disable/preempt_enable?
The main places where machine addresses are 'visible' are any code that
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 10:47:11 + Keir Fraser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 16/2/07 10:09, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are the places where the domU code references machine addresses splattered
all over the code? If not, they can just be wrapped with
On 16/2/07 10:54, Andrew Morton [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OK, you're screwed. I agree that the process freezer is the way out of that
one.
Ingo said that he's clocked the freezer at a few milliseconds. But if it's
any higher than that it'll need to get sped up once we convert cpu hotplug
Keir Fraser wrote:
This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT configurable. I'm sure
that we are going to have some nasty bugs to fix up as a result, but we
can't fix them until we find them! Then we can convert
On 16/2/07 17:46, Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT configurable. I'm sure
that we are going to have some nasty bugs to fix up as a
Keir Fraser wrote:
We can extend the Xen timer interface quite easily and get rid of this one
too. In fact it doesn't *much* matter if the CONFIG_HZ differs from the Xen
ticker rate -- we modified the Linux timer ISR to handle timer interrupts at
arbitrary times already. The only drawback is
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 17:46, Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT configurable. I'm sure
that we are going to have some nasty
On 02/16/2007 01:51 PM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
On 16/2/07 17:46, Jeremy Fitzhardinge [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Keir Fraser wrote:
This initial patchset does not include save/restore support anyway, so in
fact it would be consistent to have CONFIG_PREEMPT
22 matches
Mail list logo
