* Dor Laor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Afterwards we'll need to compensate the lost alarm signals to the
> guests by using one of
> - hrtimers to inject the lost interrupts for specific guests. The
> problem this will increase the overall load.
> - Injecting several virtual irq to the
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >( for this to work on my system i have added a 'hyper' clocksource
> > hypercall API for KVM guests to use - this is needed instead of the
> > running-to-slowly TSC. )
> >
>
> What's the problem with the TSC? The only issue I'm aware of is that
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
( for this to work on my system i have added a 'hyper' clocksource
hypercall API for KVM guests to use - this is needed instead of the
running-to-slowly TSC. )
What's the problem with the TSC? The only issue I'm aware of is that
the tsc
* Dor Laor [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Afterwards we'll need to compensate the lost alarm signals to the
guests by using one of
- hrtimers to inject the lost interrupts for specific guests. The
problem this will increase the overall load.
- Injecting several virtual irq to the guests one
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:25 -0800, Dor Laor wrote:
> This is great news for PV guests.
>
> Never-the-less we still need to improve our full virtualized guest
> support.
Full virtualized guests, which have their own dyntick support, are fine
as long as we provide local apic emulation for them.
>* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> > dyntick-enabled guest:
>> > - reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
>> > (currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
>>
>> yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
>> host and the guest. (but it's
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
host and the guest.
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > dyntick-enabled guest:
> > - reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
> > (currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
>
> yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
> host and the guest. (but it's more
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
host and the guest. (but it's more optimal to
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
host and the guest. (but
* Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
yeah. KVM under -rt already works with dynticks enabled on both the
host and the guest. (but it's more optimal to
On Fri, 2007-01-12 at 15:25 -0800, Dor Laor wrote:
This is great news for PV guests.
Never-the-less we still need to improve our full virtualized guest
support.
Full virtualized guests, which have their own dyntick support, are fine
as long as we provide local apic emulation for them.
If a
* Avi Kivity <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It occurs to me that kvm could benefit greatly from dyntick:
>
> dyntick-enabled host:
> - generate virtual interrupts at whatever HZ the guest programs its
> timers, be it 100, 250, 1000 or whatever
> - avoid expensive vmexits due to useless timer
Avi Kivity wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
You do not need dynticks for this actually. Simple no-tick-on-idle
like Xen has works well enough.
While you're modifying the timer code,
It occurs to me that kvm could benefit greatly from dyntick:
dyntick-enabled host:
- generate virtual interrupts at whatever HZ the guest programs its
timers, be it 100, 250, 1000 or whatever
- avoid expensive vmexits due to useless timer interrupts
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on
It occurs to me that kvm could benefit greatly from dyntick:
dyntick-enabled host:
- generate virtual interrupts at whatever HZ the guest programs its
timers, be it 100, 250, 1000 or whatever
- avoid expensive vmexits due to useless timer interrupts
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on
Avi Kivity wrote:
dyntick-enabled guest:
- reduce the load on the host when the guest is idling
(currently an idle guest consumes a few percent cpu)
You do not need dynticks for this actually. Simple no-tick-on-idle
like Xen has works well enough.
While you're modifying the timer code,
* Avi Kivity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It occurs to me that kvm could benefit greatly from dyntick:
dyntick-enabled host:
- generate virtual interrupts at whatever HZ the guest programs its
timers, be it 100, 250, 1000 or whatever
- avoid expensive vmexits due to useless timer interrupts
18 matches
Mail list logo
