From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge Subject: Re: [PATCH] [PVOPS] dom0 sync xen wallclock Date: Fri, 19 Feb 2010 15:05:04 -0800 Message-ID: <4B7F1920.2060908@goop.org> References: <4B733CA0.3080109@goop.org> <4B7DD0AA.3050404@goop.org> <1266570650.10261.6998.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1266570650.10261.6998.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ian Campbell Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xensource.com" , Stefano Stabellini List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 02/19/2010 01:10 AM, Ian Campbell wrote: > Unfortunately there is an existing large installed base of guests which > use the dependent wallclock mode since it is the default in oldstyle Xen > kernels. > Sure. I'm not suggesting that we remove the existing hypercall. I just don't think we should extend it or encourage its use. >> * HVM domains similarly get an emulated CMOS implemented in qemu >> > Isn't this currently emulated within the hypervisor using the wallclock > time within Xen? I assume that it was pulled into the h/v for a specific > reason? I'm not sure what reason though, the emulated RTC doesn't seem > especially performance critical... > It is? I wonder why we bothered adding a pvop for it then... J