* RE: wallclock time for paravirtualized guests
@ 2006-03-28 3:40 Ian Pratt
2006-03-28 15:28 ` Bruce Rogers
0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread
From: Ian Pratt @ 2006-03-28 3:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bruce Rogers, xen-devel
> The paravirtualized guests are offered wallclock time
> referenced to UTC only, while fully virtualized guests are
> given the option via the config file (localtime parameter) of
> starting with UTC time or local time.
> What would it take to optionally provide localtime to the
> paravirtualized guests as well?
> For a guest that launches assuming localtime as its time
> basis, then later deriving UTC from it based on configuration
> files, this is problematic, requiring some convolutions to
> how it handles time as it boots.
> Is there some place where we can insert a localtime offset
> into the start-of-day structure, or perhaps change the
> sharedinfo wallclock time to be either localtime or utc,
> depending on a localtime parameter in the config file,
> similar to what is done for fully virtualized guests?
I guess it might be useful to be able to configure a 'wallclock offset
in seconds' for a domain. It would need to be implemented in Xen and set
via a dom0 op.
Ian
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread* RE: wallclock time for paravirtualized guests 2006-03-28 3:40 wallclock time for paravirtualized guests Ian Pratt @ 2006-03-28 15:28 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-03-28 15:33 ` Keir Fraser 2006-03-31 20:22 ` [PATCHl] localtime basis " Bruce Rogers 0 siblings, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-28 15:28 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Pratt, xen-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1376 bytes --] I'll see about putting together a patch then. Is it OK to simply have wc_sec altered by an optional, per domain time offset from UTC in seconds (hence binary no change to the interface), or do you think there should be another field provided that is the offset, leaving wc_sec unmodified? - Bruce Rogers >>> "Ian Pratt" <m+Ian.Pratt@cl.cam.ac.uk> 3/27/2006 8:40:16 pm >>> > The paravirtualized guests are offered wallclock time > referenced to UTC only, while fully virtualized guests are > given the option via the config file (localtime parameter) of > starting with UTC time or local time. > What would it take to optionally provide localtime to the > paravirtualized guests as well? > For a guest that launches assuming localtime as its time > basis, then later deriving UTC from it based on configuration > files, this is problematic, requiring some convolutions to > how it handles time as it boots. > Is there some place where we can insert a localtime offset > into the start-of-day structure, or perhaps change the > sharedinfo wallclock time to be either localtime or utc, > depending on a localtime parameter in the config file, > similar to what is done for fully virtualized guests? I guess it might be useful to be able to configure a 'wallclock offset in seconds' for a domain. It would need to be implemented in Xen and set via a dom0 op. Ian [-- Attachment #1.2: HTML --] [-- Type: text/html, Size: 1781 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: wallclock time for paravirtualized guests 2006-03-28 15:28 ` Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-28 15:33 ` Keir Fraser 2006-03-31 20:22 ` [PATCHl] localtime basis " Bruce Rogers 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Keir Fraser @ 2006-03-28 15:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Rogers; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel On 28 Mar 2006, at 16:28, Bruce Rogers wrote: > I'll see about putting together a patch then. > Is it OK to simply have wc_sec altered by an optional, per domain time > offset from UTC in seconds (hence binary no change to the interface), > or do you think there should be another field provided that is the > offset, leaving wc_sec unmodified? The former. No need to change the guest ABI. -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-03-28 15:28 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-03-28 15:33 ` Keir Fraser @ 2006-03-31 20:22 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-03-31 20:30 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda 2006-04-05 14:03 ` Keir Fraser 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-31 20:22 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Ian Pratt, xen-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 292 bytes --] This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for para-virtualized guests. Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time basis instead of UTC. This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. Thank you Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers <brogers@novell.com> [-- Attachment #1.2: HTML --] [-- Type: text/html, Size: 651 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: localtime.patch --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 7211 bytes --] diff -r 85b7a341207e tools/libxc/xc_domain.c --- a/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c Fri Mar 31 13:18:41 2006 @@ -257,6 +257,17 @@ return do_dom0_op(xc_handle, &op); } +int xc_domain_set_time_offset(int xc_handle, + uint32_t domid, + int32_t time_offset_seconds) +{ + DECLARE_DOM0_OP; + op.cmd = DOM0_SETTIMEOFFSET; + op.u.settimeoffset.domain = (domid_t)domid; + op.u.settimeoffset.time_offset_seconds = time_offset_seconds; + return do_dom0_op(xc_handle, &op); +} + int xc_domain_memory_increase_reservation(int xc_handle, uint32_t domid, unsigned long nr_extents, diff -r 85b7a341207e tools/libxc/xenctrl.h --- a/tools/libxc/xenctrl.h Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/tools/libxc/xenctrl.h Fri Mar 31 13:18:41 2006 @@ -385,6 +385,10 @@ uint32_t domid, unsigned int max_memkb); +int xc_domain_set_time_offset(int xc_handle, + uint32_t domid, + int32_t time_offset_seconds); + int xc_domain_memory_increase_reservation(int xc_handle, uint32_t domid, unsigned long nr_extents, diff -r 85b7a341207e tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c --- a/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c Fri Mar 31 13:18:41 2006 @@ -826,6 +826,19 @@ return zero; } +static PyObject *pyxc_domain_set_time_offset(XcObject *self, PyObject *args) +{ + uint32_t dom; + int32_t time_offset_seconds; + + if (!PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "i", &dom)) + return NULL; + + time_offset_seconds = -__timezone; + if (xc_domain_set_time_offset(self->xc_handle, dom, time_offset_seconds) != 0) + return NULL; + return zero; +} static PyObject *dom_op(XcObject *self, PyObject *args, int (*fn)(int, uint32_t)) @@ -1146,6 +1159,13 @@ METH_VARARGS, "\n" "Returns: [int]: The size in KiB of memory spanning the given number " "of pages.\n" }, + + { "domain_set_time_offset", + (PyCFunction)pyxc_domain_set_time_offset, + METH_VARARGS, "\n" + "Set a domain's time offset to Dom0's localtime\n" + " dom [int]: Domain whose time offset is being set.\n" + "Returns: [int] 0 on success; -1 on error.\n" }, { NULL, NULL, 0, NULL } }; diff -r 85b7a341207e tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py --- a/tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py Fri Mar 31 13:18:41 2006 @@ -127,6 +127,7 @@ ('memory', int), ('maxmem', int), ('bootloader', str), + ('localtime', str), ] ROUNDTRIPPING_CONFIG_ENTRIES += VM_CONFIG_PARAMS @@ -1203,6 +1204,10 @@ self.info['image'], self.info['device']) + localtime = self.info['localtime'] + if localtime is not None and localtime == 'yes': + xc.domain_set_time_offset(self.domid) + xc.domain_setcpuweight(self.domid, self.info['cpu_weight']) # repin domain vcpus if a restricted cpus list is provided diff -r 85b7a341207e tools/python/xen/xm/create.py --- a/tools/python/xen/xm/create.py Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/tools/python/xen/xm/create.py Fri Mar 31 13:18:41 2006 @@ -610,6 +610,8 @@ config.append(['backend', ['netif']]) if vals.tpmif: config.append(['backend', ['tpmif']]) + if vals.localtime: + config.append(['localtime', vals.localtime]) if vals.bootloader: config.append(['bootloader', vals.bootloader]) diff -r 85b7a341207e xen/arch/x86/time.c --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c Fri Mar 31 13:18:41 2006 @@ -716,7 +716,7 @@ { s = d->shared_info; version_update_begin(&s->wc_version); - s->wc_sec = _wc_sec; + s->wc_sec = _wc_sec + d->time_offset_seconds; s->wc_nsec = _wc_nsec; version_update_end(&s->wc_version); } @@ -725,11 +725,21 @@ read_unlock(&domlist_lock); } +void do_settimeoffset(struct domain *d, int32_t time_offset_seconds) +{ + shared_info_t *s; + + s = d->shared_info; + version_update_begin(&s->wc_version); + d->time_offset_seconds = time_offset_seconds; + version_update_end(&s->wc_version); +} + void init_domain_time(struct domain *d) { spin_lock(&wc_lock); version_update_begin(&d->shared_info->wc_version); - d->shared_info->wc_sec = wc_sec; + d->shared_info->wc_sec = wc_sec + d->time_offset_seconds; d->shared_info->wc_nsec = wc_nsec; version_update_end(&d->shared_info->wc_version); spin_unlock(&wc_lock); diff -r 85b7a341207e xen/common/dom0_ops.c --- a/xen/common/dom0_ops.c Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/xen/common/dom0_ops.c Fri Mar 31 13:18:42 2006 @@ -682,6 +682,20 @@ break; #endif + case DOM0_SETTIMEOFFSET: + { + struct domain *d; + + ret = -ESRCH; + d = find_domain_by_id(op->u.settimeoffset.domain); + if ( d != NULL ) + { + do_settimeoffset(d, op->u.settimeoffset.time_offset_seconds); + ret = 0; + } + } + break; + default: ret = arch_do_dom0_op(op, u_dom0_op); break; diff -r 85b7a341207e xen/include/public/dom0_ops.h --- a/xen/include/public/dom0_ops.h Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/xen/include/public/dom0_ops.h Fri Mar 31 13:18:42 2006 @@ -470,6 +470,12 @@ unsigned long mfn; /* machine frame to be initialised */ } dom0_hypercall_init_t; DEFINE_GUEST_HANDLE(dom0_hypercall_init_t); + +#define DOM0_SETTIMEOFFSET 49 +typedef struct dom0_settimeoffset { + domid_t domain; + int32_t time_offset_seconds; /* applied to domain wallclock time */ +} dom0_settimeoffset_t; typedef struct dom0_op { uint32_t cmd; @@ -512,6 +518,7 @@ struct dom0_irq_permission irq_permission; struct dom0_iomem_permission iomem_permission; struct dom0_hypercall_init hypercall_init; + struct dom0_settimeoffset settimeoffset; uint8_t pad[128]; } u; } dom0_op_t; diff -r 85b7a341207e xen/include/xen/sched.h --- a/xen/include/xen/sched.h Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/xen/include/xen/sched.h Fri Mar 31 13:18:42 2006 @@ -155,6 +155,7 @@ /* Control-plane tools handle for this domain. */ xen_domain_handle_t handle; + s32 time_offset_seconds; }; struct domain_setup_info diff -r 85b7a341207e xen/include/xen/time.h --- a/xen/include/xen/time.h Thu Mar 30 13:06:11 2006 +++ b/xen/include/xen/time.h Fri Mar 31 13:18:42 2006 @@ -59,6 +59,7 @@ extern void do_settime( unsigned long secs, unsigned long nsecs, u64 system_time_base); +extern void do_settimeoffset(struct domain *d, int32_t wc_offset); extern void send_timer_event(struct vcpu *v); #endif /* __XEN_TIME_H__ */ [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-03-31 20:22 ` [PATCHl] localtime basis " Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-31 20:30 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda 2006-03-31 20:41 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-04-05 14:03 ` Keir Fraser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Muli Ben-Yehuda @ 2006-03-31 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Rogers; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 03:22:50PM -0500, Bruce Rogers wrote: > This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for > para-virtualized guests. > Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time basis > instead of UTC. > This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. Why is this functionality needed? what is the equivalent when running on bare metal? Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-03-31 20:30 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda @ 2006-03-31 20:41 ` Bruce Rogers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-31 20:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Muli Ben-Yehuda; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --] Some para-virtualized OS's (eg. NetWare) assume they are starting from a localtime time base, and our start-of-day time information should allow such a guest to work without gross modifications. Xen already make such an allowance for fully virtualized guests. This is just closing the gap. - Bruce >>> Muli Ben-Yehuda <mulix@mulix.org> 3/31/2006 1:30:47 pm >>> On Fri, Mar 31, 2006 at 03:22:50PM -0500, Bruce Rogers wrote: > This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for > para-virtualized guests. > Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time basis > instead of UTC. > This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. Why is this functionality needed? what is the equivalent when running on bare metal? Cheers, Muli -- Muli Ben-Yehuda http://www.mulix.org | http://mulix.livejournal.com/ [-- Attachment #1.2: HTML --] [-- Type: text/html, Size: 1219 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-03-31 20:22 ` [PATCHl] localtime basis " Bruce Rogers 2006-03-31 20:30 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda @ 2006-04-05 14:03 ` Keir Fraser 2006-04-05 14:30 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-06-20 23:20 ` Bruce Rogers 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Keir Fraser @ 2006-04-05 14:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Rogers; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel On 31 Mar 2006, at 21:22, Bruce Rogers wrote: > This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for > para-virtualized guests. > Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time basis > instead of UTC. > This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. I've just checked in a patch to provide a clean wallclock update interface from common Xen code. Please re-send based on that patch. Your dom0_op implementation should modify d->time_offset_seconds directly and then call update_domain_wallclock_time(d). Apart from that, the time_offset_seconds field in dom0_op.h should be type int32_t (we don't use s32 in public headers). -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-04-05 14:03 ` Keir Fraser @ 2006-04-05 14:30 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-06-20 23:20 ` Bruce Rogers 1 sibling, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-04-05 14:30 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel Thanks. I'll resend then. I did notice a few issues with my original patch, so it good that it's getting looked at in greater detail. - Bruce >>> Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> 4/5/2006 7:03:50 am >>> On 31 Mar 2006, at 21:22, Bruce Rogers wrote: > This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for > para-virtualized guests. > Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time basis > instead of UTC. > This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. I've just checked in a patch to provide a clean wallclock update interface from common Xen code. Please re-send based on that patch. Your dom0_op implementation should modify d->time_offset_seconds directly and then call update_domain_wallclock_time(d). Apart from that, the time_offset_seconds field in dom0_op.h should be type int32_t (we don't use s32 in public headers). -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-04-05 14:03 ` Keir Fraser 2006-04-05 14:30 ` Bruce Rogers @ 2006-06-20 23:20 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-06-21 15:29 ` B Thomas 2006-06-21 16:11 ` Keir Fraser 1 sibling, 2 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-06-20 23:20 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel; +Cc: Ian Pratt [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1964 bytes --] Attached please find a patch (against unstable tree) which provides some localtime support for paravirtualized guests. It is quite minimal in its approach, satisfying the purposes of the paravirtualized NetWare operating system as well as any others that expect the time base to be provided in localtime. I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a localtime time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require additional changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & etc.), and should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough implementation of non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. Nevertheless, this patch is functionaly equivalent to what is being done SLES 10's Xen implementation (but with SLES10 being based on testing tree), so I felt it should be submitted as is, with a more comprehensive approach submitted separately. Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers <brogers@novell.com> - Bruce >>> On 4/5/2006 at 8:03 AM, in message <268cbf4ac7bb43efa0994df4a124a19d@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 31 Mar 2006, at 21:22, Bruce Rogers wrote: > >> This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for >> para-virtualized guests. >> Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time basis >> instead of UTC. >> This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. > > I've just checked in a patch to provide a clean wallclock update > interface from common Xen code. Please re-send based on that patch. > Your dom0_op implementation should modify d->time_offset_seconds > directly and then call update_domain_wallclock_time(d). > > Apart from that, the time_offset_seconds field in dom0_op.h should be > type int32_t (we don't use s32 in public headers). > > -- Keir > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel [-- Attachment #2: xen-localtime.diff --] [-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 6168 bytes --] --- xen-unstable.orig/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c +++ xen-unstable/tools/libxc/xc_domain.c @@ -286,6 +286,17 @@ int xc_domain_setmaxmem(int xc_handle, return do_dom0_op(xc_handle, &op); } +int xc_domain_set_time_offset(int xc_handle, + uint32_t domid, + int32_t time_offset_seconds) +{ + DECLARE_DOM0_OP; + op.cmd = DOM0_SETTIMEOFFSET; + op.u.settimeoffset.domain = (domid_t)domid; + op.u.settimeoffset.time_offset_seconds = time_offset_seconds; + return do_dom0_op(xc_handle, &op); +} + int xc_domain_memory_increase_reservation(int xc_handle, uint32_t domid, unsigned long nr_extents, --- xen-unstable.orig/tools/libxc/xenctrl.h +++ xen-unstable/tools/libxc/xenctrl.h @@ -410,6 +410,10 @@ int xc_domain_setmaxmem(int xc_handle, uint32_t domid, unsigned int max_memkb); +int xc_domain_set_time_offset(int xc_handle, + uint32_t domid, + int32_t time_offset_seconds); + int xc_domain_memory_increase_reservation(int xc_handle, uint32_t domid, unsigned long nr_extents, --- xen-unstable.orig/tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py +++ xen-unstable/tools/python/xen/xend/XendDomainInfo.py @@ -135,6 +135,7 @@ ('bootloader', str), ('bootloader_args', str), ('features', str), + ('localtime', int), ] ROUNDTRIPPING_CONFIG_ENTRIES += VM_CONFIG_PARAMS @@ -1260,6 +1261,10 @@ self.info['image'], self.info['device']) + localtime = self.info['localtime'] + if localtime is not None and localtime == 1: + xc.domain_set_time_offset(self.domid) + xc.domain_setcpuweight(self.domid, self.info['cpu_weight']) # repin domain vcpus if a restricted cpus list is provided --- xen-unstable.orig/tools/python/xen/xm/create.py +++ xen-unstable/tools/python/xen/xm/create.py @@ -672,6 +672,8 @@ config.append(['backend', ['netif']]) if vals.tpmif: config.append(['backend', ['tpmif']]) + if vals.localtime: + config.append(['localtime', vals.localtime]) config_image = configure_image(vals) if vals.bootloader: --- xen-unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/time.c +++ xen-unstable/xen/arch/x86/time.c @@ -699,7 +699,7 @@ { spin_lock(&wc_lock); version_update_begin(&d->shared_info->wc_version); - d->shared_info->wc_sec = wc_sec; + d->shared_info->wc_sec = wc_sec + d->time_offset_seconds; d->shared_info->wc_nsec = wc_nsec; version_update_end(&d->shared_info->wc_version); spin_unlock(&wc_lock); --- xen-unstable.orig/xen/common/dom0_ops.c +++ xen-unstable/xen/common/dom0_ops.c @@ -693,6 +693,21 @@ long do_dom0_op(GUEST_HANDLE(dom0_op_t) break; #endif + case DOM0_SETTIMEOFFSET: + { + struct domain *d; + + ret = -ESRCH; + d = find_domain_by_id(op->u.settimeoffset.domain); + if ( d != NULL ) + { + d->time_offset_seconds = op->u.settimeoffset.time_offset_seconds; + put_domain(d); + ret = 0; + } + } + break; + default: ret = arch_do_dom0_op(op, u_dom0_op); break; --- xen-unstable.orig/xen/include/public/dom0_ops.h +++ xen-unstable/xen/include/public/dom0_ops.h @@ -514,6 +514,14 @@ typedef struct dom0_hypercall_init dom0_hypercall_init_t; DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(dom0_hypercall_init_t); +#define DOM0_SETTIMEOFFSET 49 +struct dom0_settimeoffset { + domid_t domain; + int32_t time_offset_seconds; /* applied to domain wallclock time */ +}; +typedef struct dom0_settimeoffset dom0_settimeoffset_t; +DEFINE_XEN_GUEST_HANDLE(dom0_settimeoffset_t); + struct dom0_op { uint32_t cmd; uint32_t interface_version; /* DOM0_INTERFACE_VERSION */ @@ -555,6 +563,7 @@ struct dom0_irq_permission irq_permission; struct dom0_iomem_permission iomem_permission; struct dom0_hypercall_init hypercall_init; + struct dom0_settimeoffset settimeoffset; uint8_t pad[128]; } u; }; --- xen-unstable.orig/xen/include/xen/sched.h +++ xen-unstable/xen/include/xen/sched.h @@ -159,6 +159,7 @@ /* OProfile support. */ struct xenoprof *xenoprof; + int32_t time_offset_seconds; }; struct domain_setup_info --- xen-unstable.orig/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c +++ xen-unstable/tools/python/xen/lowlevel/xc/xc.c @@ -869,6 +869,30 @@ static PyObject *pyxc_domain_iomem_permi return zero; } +static PyObject *pyxc_domain_set_time_offset(XcObject *self, PyObject *args) +{ + uint32_t dom; + int32_t time_offset_seconds; + time_t calendar_time; + struct tm local_time; + struct tm utc_time; + + if (!PyArg_ParseTuple(args, "i", &dom)) + return NULL; + + calendar_time = time(NULL); + localtime_r(&calendar_time, &local_time); + gmtime_r(&calendar_time, &utc_time); + /* set up to get calendar time based on utc_time, with local dst setting */ + utc_time.tm_isdst = local_time.tm_isdst; + time_offset_seconds = (int32_t)difftime(calendar_time, mktime(&utc_time)); + + if (xc_domain_set_time_offset(self->xc_handle, dom, time_offset_seconds) != 0) + return NULL; + + Py_INCREF(zero); + return zero; +} static PyObject *dom_op(XcObject *self, PyObject *args, int (*fn)(int, uint32_t)) @@ -1208,6 +1208,13 @@ static PyMethodDef pyxc_methods[] = { "Returns: [int]: The size in KiB of memory spanning the given number " "of pages.\n" }, + { "domain_set_time_offset", + (PyCFunction)pyxc_domain_set_time_offset, + METH_VARARGS, "\n" + "Set a domain's time offset to Dom0's localtime\n" + " dom [int]: Domain whose time offset is being set.\n" + "Returns: [int] 0 on success; -1 on error.\n" }, + { NULL, NULL, 0, NULL } }; [-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-20 23:20 ` Bruce Rogers @ 2006-06-21 15:29 ` B Thomas 2006-06-21 15:49 ` Keir Fraser 2006-06-21 16:11 ` Keir Fraser 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: B Thomas @ 2006-06-21 15:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Rogers; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2955 bytes --] Hi, Two quick comments/questions come to mind upon seeing this patch: - it appears possible to set/reset the time offset multiple times even while the domain is running. Am I misreading the patch ? Is this desirable ? - this is a different mechanism than the one used to set time offsets for fully virtualized guests. At the lowest levels, this is probably difficult to avoid. Higher up, though, it would be nice if this type of capability didn't look/act and be controlled differently. The differences between fully and para virtualized systems should disappear the higher into the control logic you go. Were you able to give any thought on how to merge the models ? -b On 6/20/06, Bruce Rogers <BROGERS@novell.com> wrote: > > Attached please find a patch (against unstable tree) which provides > some localtime support for paravirtualized guests. It is quite > minimal > in its approach, satisfying the purposes of the paravirtualized > NetWare operating system as well as any others that expect the time > base to be provided in localtime. > > I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a > localtime > time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require > additional > changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & etc.), > and > should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough implementation > of > non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. Nevertheless, > this patch is functionaly equivalent to what is being done SLES 10's > Xen > implementation (but with SLES10 being based on testing tree), so I felt > it > should be submitted as is, with a more comprehensive approach > submitted > separately. > > Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers <brogers@novell.com> > > - Bruce > > >>> On 4/5/2006 at 8:03 AM, in message > <268cbf4ac7bb43efa0994df4a124a19d@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser > <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 31 Mar 2006, at 21:22, Bruce Rogers wrote: > > > >> This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for > >> para-virtualized guests. > >> Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time > basis > >> instead of UTC. > >> This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. > > > > I've just checked in a patch to provide a clean wallclock update > > interface from common Xen code. Please re-send based on that patch. > > Your dom0_op implementation should modify d->time_offset_seconds > > directly and then call update_domain_wallclock_time(d). > > > > Apart from that, the time_offset_seconds field in dom0_op.h should be > > > type int32_t (we don't use s32 in public headers). > > > > -- Keir > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Xen-devel mailing list > > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel > > > > [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3903 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-21 15:29 ` B Thomas @ 2006-06-21 15:49 ` Keir Fraser 2006-06-21 16:01 ` Keir Fraser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 15:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: B Thomas; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel, Bruce Rogers On 21 Jun 2006, at 16:29, B Thomas wrote: > Hi, > > Two quick comments/questions come to mind upon seeing this patch: > > - it appears possible to set/reset the time offset multiple times > even while the domain is running. Am I misreading the patch ? Is this > desirable ? Yes you can. No it probably isn't desirable, but the higher-level tools only call the lower-level command during domain initialisation. If they did call it at other times, it'd be up to them to sync with running guests somehow. > - this is a different mechanism than the one used to set time offsets > for fully virtualized guests. At the lowest levels, this is probably > difficult to avoid. Higher up, though, it would be nice if this type > of capability didn't look/act and be controlled differently. The > differences between fully and para virtualized systems should > disappear the higher into the control logic you go. Were you able to > give any thought on how to merge the models ? The 'support' for full-virt guests is *only* a qemu patch right now. No tools integration at all. Integration would have to be in xend, as it is xend which kicks off the qemu-dm process for HVM guests. Setting the 'timeoffset' based on the localtime config option wouldn't be very hard, and would unify that new option across PV and HVM guests. Patches welcome (and moving the logic to work out what the time offset should be from xc.c into xend itself would be nice). -- Keir > -b > > > > On 6/20/06, Bruce Rogers <BROGERS@novell.com> wrote: >> some localtime support for paravirtualized guests. It is quite >> minimal >> in its approach, satisfying the purposes of the paravirtualized >> NetWare operating system as well as any others that expect the time >> base to be provided in localtime. >> >> I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a >> localtime >> time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require >> additional >> changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & etc.), >> and >> should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough >> implementation >> of >> non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. Nevertheless, >> this patch is functionaly equivalent to what is being done SLES 10's >> Xen >> implementation (but with SLES10 being based on testing tree), so I >> felt >> it >> should be submitted as is, with a more comprehensive approach >> submitted >> separately. >> >> Signed-off-by: Bruce Rogers < brogers@novell.com> >> >> - Bruce >> >> >>> On 4/5/2006 at 8:03 AM, in message >> <268cbf4ac7bb43efa0994df4a124a19d@cl.cam.ac.uk >, Keir Fraser >> <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> > On 31 Mar 2006, at 21:22, Bruce Rogers wrote: >> > >> >> This patch allows the localtime parameter to be used for >> >> para-virtualized guests. >> >> Some paravirtualized guests may need to start with a local time >> basis >> >> instead of UTC. >> >> This patch provides for that need. Please review and apply. >> > >> > I've just checked in a patch to provide a clean wallclock update >> > interface from common Xen code. Please re-send based on that patch. >> > Your dom0_op implementation should modify d->time_offset_seconds >> > directly and then call update_domain_wallclock_time(d). >> > >> > Apart from that, the time_offset_seconds field in dom0_op.h should >> be >> >> > type int32_t (we don't use s32 in public headers). >> > >> > -- Keir >> > >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Xen-devel mailing list >> > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Xen-devel mailing list >> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com >> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > Xen-devel mailing list > Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-21 15:49 ` Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 16:01 ` Keir Fraser 2006-06-21 16:59 ` B Thomas 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel, Bruce Rogers, B Thomas On 21 Jun 2006, at 16:49, Keir Fraser wrote: >> - this is a different mechanism than the one used to set time >> offsets for fully virtualized guests. At the lowest levels, this is >> probably difficult to avoid. Higher up, though, it would be nice if >> this type of capability didn't look/act and be controlled >> differently. The differences between fully and para virtualized >> systems should disappear the higher into the control logic you go. >> Were you able to give any thought on how to merge the models ? > > The 'support' for full-virt guests is *only* a qemu patch right now. > No tools integration at all. Integration would have to be in xend, as > it is xend which kicks off the qemu-dm process for HVM guests. Setting > the 'timeoffset' based on the localtime config option wouldn't be very > hard, and would unify that new option across PV and HVM guests. > Patches welcome (and moving the logic to work out what the time offset > should be from xc.c into xend itself would be nice). Also, RTC emulation really belongs in Xen anyway, so it'll be possible to unify at the dom0_op level at that point. -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-21 16:01 ` Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 16:59 ` B Thomas 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: B Thomas @ 2006-06-21 16:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel, Bruce Rogers [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1280 bytes --] On 6/21/06, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > > > On 21 Jun 2006, at 16:49, Keir Fraser wrote: > > >> - this is a different mechanism than the one used to set time > >> offsets for fully virtualized guests. At the lowest levels, this is > >> probably difficult to avoid. Higher up, though, it would be nice if > >> this type of capability didn't look/act and be controlled > >> differently. The differences between fully and para virtualized > >> systems should disappear the higher into the control logic you go. > >> Were you able to give any thought on how to merge the models ? > > > > The 'support' for full-virt guests is *only* a qemu patch right now. > > No tools integration at all. Integration would have to be in xend, as > > it is xend which kicks off the qemu-dm process for HVM guests. Setting > > the 'timeoffset' based on the localtime config option wouldn't be very > > hard, and would unify that new option across PV and HVM guests. > > Patches welcome (and moving the logic to work out what the time offset > > should be from xc.c into xend itself would be nice). > > Also, RTC emulation really belongs in Xen anyway, so it'll be possible > to unify at the dom0_op level at that point. > > -- Keir Yes; I agree. That would be reasonable. -b [-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1716 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-20 23:20 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-06-21 15:29 ` B Thomas @ 2006-06-21 16:11 ` Keir Fraser 2006-06-21 21:23 ` Bruce Rogers 1 sibling, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Rogers; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel On 21 Jun 2006, at 00:20, Bruce Rogers wrote: > I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a > localtime > time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require > additional > changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & etc.), > and > should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough implementation > of > non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. I'm not sure what you mean here. If Xen adds an offset to wc_sec then XenLinux will see a different wallclock time. Right? RTC isn't emulated or used by domUs. -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-21 16:11 ` Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 21:23 ` Bruce Rogers 2006-06-21 21:45 ` Keir Fraser 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-06-21 21:23 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel The way Linux gets its UTC time when it is running from a locatime time base is that hwclock is called from the init scripts and it reads /dev/rtc, offsets that value by the local time offset, and resets the kernel's time via the settimeofday system call. So if /dev/rtc was tied straight into the time retrieved from Xen (speaking of the DomU case) this all works correctly to reset the kernel's sense of time to be UTC. As it stands today, hwclock fails because neither /dev/rtc nor direct access to the RTC via port I/O is there for a DomU. Without the above actions taking place, the kernel is left using localtime (from Xen) as if it was UTC, and the localtime derived from that is off. I've got the rtc.c code hacked up to make it work but before I proceeded down that path further, was interested in hearing what others thought might be the best solution for allowing guests to use Xen as a time basis, but be more flexible with managing its own time. - Bruce >>> On 6/21/2006 at 10:11 AM, in message <220a261ede8f0089ecc6a7c408cea2b8@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > On 21 Jun 2006, at 00:20, Bruce Rogers wrote: > >> I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a >> localtime >> time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require >> additional >> changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & etc.), >> and >> should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough implementation >> of >> non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. > > I'm not sure what you mean here. If Xen adds an offset to wc_sec then > XenLinux will see a different wallclock time. Right? RTC isn't emulated > or used by domUs. > > -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-21 21:23 ` Bruce Rogers @ 2006-06-21 21:45 ` Keir Fraser 2006-06-21 22:16 ` Bruce Rogers 0 siblings, 1 reply; 19+ messages in thread From: Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 21:45 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Bruce Rogers; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel I must be missing something. Are you saying we might want to provide a domU with a localtime RTC, which it reads, offsets to UTC (because it knows its timezone), and then uses to set UTC time in its kernel? How is that better than what we do now, which is to simply provide UTC time directly to the kernel, which it can then convert to localtime itself when that's appropriate? -- Keir On 21 Jun 2006, at 22:23, Bruce Rogers wrote: > The way Linux gets its UTC time when it is running from a locatime > time base is that hwclock is called from the init scripts and it reads > /dev/rtc, offsets that value by the local time offset, and resets the > kernel's time via the settimeofday system call. So if /dev/rtc was > tied straight into the time retrieved from Xen (speaking of the > DomU case) this all works correctly to reset the kernel's sense > of time to be UTC. As it stands today, hwclock fails because > neither /dev/rtc nor direct access to the RTC via port I/O is > there for a DomU. > > Without the above actions taking place, the kernel is left > using localtime (from Xen) as if it was UTC, and the > localtime derived from that is off. I've got the rtc.c code > hacked up to make it work but before I proceeded down that > path further, was interested in hearing what others thought > might be the best solution for allowing guests to use Xen as > a time basis, but be more flexible with managing its own time. > > - Bruce > >>>> On 6/21/2006 at 10:11 AM, in message > <220a261ede8f0089ecc6a7c408cea2b8@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser > <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > >> On 21 Jun 2006, at 00:20, Bruce Rogers wrote: >> >>> I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a >>> localtime >>> time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require >>> additional >>> changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & > etc.), >>> and >>> should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough > implementation >>> of >>> non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. >> >> I'm not sure what you mean here. If Xen adds an offset to wc_sec then > >> XenLinux will see a different wallclock time. Right? RTC isn't > emulated >> or used by domUs. >> >> -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* Re: [PATCHl] localtime basis for paravirtualized guests 2006-06-21 21:45 ` Keir Fraser @ 2006-06-21 22:16 ` Bruce Rogers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-06-21 22:16 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Keir Fraser; +Cc: Ian Pratt, xen-devel No you aren't missing anything ;-) Simply providing UTC to a linux DomU is by far the simplest way to go, as you point out. But given that my patch creates the option of launching a domain with localtime as its time base (which P.V. NetWare needs), I'm just pointing out what we found to be the additional infrastructure that would be needed to get linux to work correctly _if_ you wanted to have it correctly work with a localtime time base. Our SLES 10 YaST module defaults to UTC when creating linux guests, but the option to use localtime is also there, while the additional infrastructure mentioned (/dev/rtc support, etc) is, unfortunately, not. So we are for the moment documenting that linux guests should have their virtual hardware clocks set to UTC, which is what most everyone would naturally do. My patch solves NetWare's needs just fine, but is insufficent for linux, and I think a much more universal solution than what my patch implements is needed longer term. - Bruce >>> On 6/21/2006 at 3:45 PM, in message <9d0d38d120a8176845142085d3822671@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: > I must be missing something. Are you saying we might want to provide a > domU with a localtime RTC, which it reads, offsets to UTC (because it > knows its timezone), and then uses to set UTC time in its kernel? How > is that better than what we do now, which is to simply provide UTC time > directly to the kernel, which it can then convert to localtime itself > when that's appropriate? > > -- Keir > > On 21 Jun 2006, at 22:23, Bruce Rogers wrote: > >> The way Linux gets its UTC time when it is running from a locatime >> time base is that hwclock is called from the init scripts and it reads >> /dev/rtc, offsets that value by the local time offset, and resets the >> kernel's time via the settimeofday system call. So if /dev/rtc was >> tied straight into the time retrieved from Xen (speaking of the >> DomU case) this all works correctly to reset the kernel's sense >> of time to be UTC. As it stands today, hwclock fails because >> neither /dev/rtc nor direct access to the RTC via port I/O is >> there for a DomU. >> >> Without the above actions taking place, the kernel is left >> using localtime (from Xen) as if it was UTC, and the >> localtime derived from that is off. I've got the rtc.c code >> hacked up to make it work but before I proceeded down that >> path further, was interested in hearing what others thought >> might be the best solution for allowing guests to use Xen as >> a time basis, but be more flexible with managing its own time. >> >> - Bruce >> >>>>> On 6/21/2006 at 10:11 AM, in message >> <220a261ede8f0089ecc6a7c408cea2b8@cl.cam.ac.uk>, Keir Fraser >> <Keir.Fraser@cl.cam.ac.uk> wrote: >> >>> On 21 Jun 2006, at 00:20, Bruce Rogers wrote: >>> >>>> I should point out however that this by itself does not allow a >>>> localtime >>>> time base to be used for xenolinux. That support would require >>>> additional >>>> changes to Linux (eg a Xen aware implementation of /dev/rtc & >> etc.), >>>> and >>>> should probably be based on a more flexible and thorough >> implementation >>>> of >>>> non-UTC guest time bases than what this patch provides. >>> >>> I'm not sure what you mean here. If Xen adds an offset to wc_sec then >> >>> XenLinux will see a different wallclock time. Right? RTC isn't >> emulated >>> or used by domUs. >>> >>> -- Keir ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <4427F3EB.092E.0048.1@novell.com>]
[parent not found: <44282079.092E.0048.1@novell.com>]
* wallclock time for paravirtualized guests [not found] ` <44282079.092E.0048.1@novell.com> @ 2006-03-28 15:17 ` Bruce Rogers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-28 15:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel [-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 811 bytes --] The paravirtualized guests are offered wallclock time referenced to UTC only, while fully virtualized guests are given the option via the config file (localtime parameter) of starting with UTC time or local time. What would it take to optionally provide localtime to the paravirtualized guests as well? For a guest that launches assuming localtime as its time basis, then later deriving UTC from it based on configuration files, this is problematic, requiring some convolutions to how it handles time as it boots. Is there some place where we can insert a localtime offset into the start-of-day structure, or perhaps change the sharedinfo wallclock time to be either localtime or utc, depending on a localtime parameter in the config file, similar to what is done for fully virtualized guests? - Bruce Rogers [-- Attachment #1.2: HTML --] [-- Type: text/html, Size: 1104 bytes --] [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 138 bytes --] _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
* wallclock time for paravirtualized guests @ 2006-03-28 2:44 Bruce Rogers 0 siblings, 0 replies; 19+ messages in thread From: Bruce Rogers @ 2006-03-28 2:44 UTC (permalink / raw) To: xen-devel The paravirtualized guests are offered wallclock time referenced to UTC only, while fully virtualized guests are given the option via the config file (localtime parameter) of starting with UTC time or local time. What would it take to optionally provide localtime to the paravirtualized guests as well? For a guest that launches assuming localtime as its time basis, then later deriving UTC from it based on configuration files, this is problematic, requiring some convolutions to how it handles time as it boots. Is there some place where we can insert a localtime offset into the start-of-day structure, or perhaps change the sharedinfo wallclock time to be either localtime or utc, depending on a localtime parameter in the config file, similar to what is done for fully virtualized guests? - Bruce Rogers ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 19+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2006-06-21 22:16 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2006-03-28 3:40 wallclock time for paravirtualized guests Ian Pratt
2006-03-28 15:28 ` Bruce Rogers
2006-03-28 15:33 ` Keir Fraser
2006-03-31 20:22 ` [PATCHl] localtime basis " Bruce Rogers
2006-03-31 20:30 ` Muli Ben-Yehuda
2006-03-31 20:41 ` Bruce Rogers
2006-04-05 14:03 ` Keir Fraser
2006-04-05 14:30 ` Bruce Rogers
2006-06-20 23:20 ` Bruce Rogers
2006-06-21 15:29 ` B Thomas
2006-06-21 15:49 ` Keir Fraser
2006-06-21 16:01 ` Keir Fraser
2006-06-21 16:59 ` B Thomas
2006-06-21 16:11 ` Keir Fraser
2006-06-21 21:23 ` Bruce Rogers
2006-06-21 21:45 ` Keir Fraser
2006-06-21 22:16 ` Bruce Rogers
[not found] <4427F3EB.092E.0048.1@novell.com>
[not found] ` <44282079.092E.0048.1@novell.com>
2006-03-28 15:17 ` wallclock time " Bruce Rogers
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-03-28 2:44 Bruce Rogers
This is an external index of several public inboxes, see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror all data and code used by this external index.