From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58139) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X9bzs-0002kV-AA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:29:00 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X9bzn-0004Qb-4F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:28:56 -0400 Received: from zimbra3.corp.accelance.fr ([2001:4080:204::2:8]:58121) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1X9bzm-0004QR-TQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Jul 2014 11:28:51 -0400 Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2014 17:28:46 +0200 (CEST) From: Sebastian Tanase Message-ID: <690316639.20049989.1406042926107.JavaMail.root@openwide.fr> In-Reply-To: <53CE81AA.2040609@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH V4 0/6] icount: Implement delay algorithm between guest and host clocks List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, peter maydell , aliguori@amazon.com, wenchaoqemu@gmail.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mst@redhat.com, stefanha@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redhat.com, michael@walle.cc, camille begue , alex@alex.org.uk, crobinso@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de, rth@twiddle.net ----- Mail original ----- > De: "Paolo Bonzini" > =C3=80: "Sebastian Tanase" > Cc: aliguori@amazon.com, afaerber@suse.de, rth@twiddle.net, "peter maydel= l" , > michael@walle.cc, alex@alex.org.uk, stefanha@redhat.com, lcapitulino@redh= at.com, crobinso@redhat.com, > armbru@redhat.com, wenchaoqemu@gmail.com, quintela@redhat.com, kwolf@redh= at.com, mst@redhat.com, "camille begue" > , qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Envoy=C3=A9: Mardi 22 Juillet 2014 17:22:18 > Objet: Re: [RFC PATCH V4 0/6] icount: Implement delay algorithm between g= uest and host clocks >=20 > Il 22/07/2014 17:17, Sebastian Tanase ha scritto: > >> > That's a bug to fix indeed, then---it should count up from 0 > >> > without > >> > icount, and icount shouldn't affect this. Thanks for > >> > investigating > >> > it. > > Just to be sure I don't missunderstand, when you say "without > > icount" > > you refer to qemu_icount_bias (aka when the vcpu is inactive), > > right? >=20 > No, I mean without "-icount", i.e. when QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL is just > nanoseconds. >=20 > Paolo >=20 When not using "-icount" everything is fine because QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL=20 is based on the real clock and the offset; qemu_icount_bias =20 doesn't come into play. So the vm_clock_warp_start fix is only for the case= =20 where we use "-icount". Sebastian