From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Rework alarm timer infrastrucure - take2 Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:25:49 +0300 Message-ID: <46C95E1D.1090409@qumranet.com> References: <20070817231149.544849769@gmail.com> <20070819131042.GA22798@mail.shareable.org> <46C84A16.7040305@qumranet.com> <200708191457.21237.paul@codesourcery.com> <46C84E95.7070802@qumranet.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org, Jamie Lokier , qemu-devel-qX2TKyscuCcdnm+yROfE0A@public.gmane.org To: Paul Brook Return-path: In-Reply-To: <46C84E95.7070802-atKUWr5tajBWk0Htik3J/w@public.gmane.org> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces-5NWGOfrQmneRv+LV9MX5uipxlwaOVQ5f@public.gmane.org List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Avi Kivity wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: >>> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts >>> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile >>> if it >>> introduces extra complexity. >>> >> >> >> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the >> first place? >> > > Accuracy is much more important from my point of view. Also, the > reduction in the number of signals delivered when the guest uses 100Hz > is significant. > You'd also get better battery life on laptops. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Splunk Inc. Still grepping through log files to find problems? Stop. Now Search log events and configuration files using AJAX and a browser. Download your FREE copy of Splunk now >> http://get.splunk.com/ From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IN3W6-0000Xj-00 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:25:46 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IN3W3-0000WC-Nv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:25:44 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IN3W3-0000Vw-9F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:25:43 -0400 Received: from il.qumranet.com ([82.166.9.18]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IN3W1-0001Ve-Kn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 20 Aug 2007 05:25:41 -0400 Message-ID: <46C95E1D.1090409@qumranet.com> Date: Mon, 20 Aug 2007 12:25:49 +0300 From: Avi Kivity MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [kvm-devel] [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/4] Rework alarm timer infrastrucure - take2 References: <20070817231149.544849769@gmail.com> <20070819131042.GA22798@mail.shareable.org> <46C84A16.7040305@qumranet.com> <200708191457.21237.paul@codesourcery.com> <46C84E95.7070802@qumranet.com> In-Reply-To: <46C84E95.7070802@qumranet.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Avi Kivity wrote: > Paul Brook wrote: >>> Yes, good thinking, but this should only be done if it actually impacts >>> something. Reducing overhead from 0.1% to 0.05% is not worthwhile >>> if it >>> introduces extra complexity. >>> >> >> >> If the overhead is that small, why are we touching this code in the >> first place? >> > > Accuracy is much more important from my point of view. Also, the > reduction in the number of signals delivered when the guest uses 100Hz > is significant. > You'd also get better battery life on laptops. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function