From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Hollis Blanchard Subject: Re: [RFC] Paravirt timer for KVM Date: Fri, 12 Oct 2007 14:48:27 -0500 Message-ID: <1192218507.14891.18.camel@basalt> References: <5d6222a80710120908s6b1f5845head84e7b7a463cd1@mail.gmail.com> Reply-To: Hollis Blanchard Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel , Jeremy Fitzhardinge , Avi Kivity To: Glauber de Oliveira Costa Return-path: In-Reply-To: <5d6222a80710120908s6b1f5845head84e7b7a463cd1-JsoAwUIsXosN+BqQ9rBEUg@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 On Fri, 2007-10-12 at 13:08 -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote: > +config KVM_CLOCK > + bool "KVM paravirtualized clock" > + depends on PARAVIRT && GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS > + help > + Turning on this option will allow you to run a paravirtualized clock > + when running over the KVM hypervisor. Instead of relying on a PIT > + (or probably other) emulation by the underlying device model, the host > + provides the guest with timing infrastructure, as time of day, and > + timer expiration. I must have missed earlier discussion on this topic, so I'm left wondering... what's the point? What's wrong with PIT (et al) emulation? -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/