From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Roedel, Joerg" Subject: Re: Bug in KVM clock backwards compensation Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:22:09 +0200 Message-ID: <20110428072209.GH20365@amd.com> References: <4DB9106D.6040203@redhat.com> <4DB911D9.3010409@web.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Cc: Zachary Amsden , kvm To: Jan Kiszka Return-path: Received: from va3ehsobe004.messaging.microsoft.com ([216.32.180.14]:19969 "EHLO VA3EHSOBE004.bigfish.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754258Ab1D1HWm (ORCPT ); Thu, 28 Apr 2011 03:22:42 -0400 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4DB911D9.3010409@web.de> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:06:01AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote: > And /me still wonders (like I did when this first popped up) if the > proper place of determining TSC stability really have to be KVM. > > If the Linux core fails to detect some instability and KVM has to jump > in, shouldn't we better improve the core's detection abilities and make > use of them in KVM? Conceptually this looks like we are currently just > working around a core deficit in KVM. Yes, good question. Has this ever triggered on a real machine (not counting the suspend/resume issue in)? Regards, Joerg -- AMD Operating System Research Center Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24 85609 Dornach General Managers: Alberto Bozzo, Andrew Bowd Registration: Dornach, Landkr. Muenchen; Registerger. Muenchen, HRB Nr. 43632