From: Sheng Yang <sheng@linux.intel.com>
To: Beth Kon <eak@us.ibm.com>
Cc: dlaor@redhat.com, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: The HPET issue on Linux
Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 11:01:04 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <201001071101.05049.sheng@linux.intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4B44D82A.9030805@us.ibm.com>
On Thursday 07 January 2010 02:36:26 Beth Kon wrote:
> Dor Laor wrote:
> > On 01/06/2010 12:09 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >> On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 05:48:52PM +0800, Sheng Yang wrote:
> >>> Hi Beth
> >>>
> >>> I still found the emulated HPET would result in some boot failure. For
> >>> example, on my 2.6.30, with HPET enabled, the kernel would fail
> >>> check_timer(),
> >>> especially in timer_irq_works().
> >>>
> >>> The testing of timer_irq_works() is let 10 ticks pass(using
> >>> mdelay()), and
> >>> want to confirm the clock source with at least 5 ticks advanced in
> >>> jiffies.
> >>> I've checked that, on my machine, it would mostly get only 4 ticks
> >>> when HPET
> >>> enabled, then fail the test. On the other hand, if I using PIT, it
> >>> would get
> >>> more than 10 ticks(maybe understandable if some complementary ticks
> >>> there). Of
> >>> course, extend the ticks count/mdelay() time can work.
> >>>
> >>> I think it's a major issue of HPET. And it maybe just due to a too long
> >>> userspace path for interrupt injection... If it's true, I think it's
> >>> not easy
> >>> to deal with it.
> >>
> >> PIT tick are reinjected automatically, HPET should probably do the same
> >> although it may just create another set of problems.
> >
> > Older Linux do automatic adjustment for lost ticks so automatic
> > reinjection causes time to run too fast. This is why we added the
> > -no-kvm-pit-reinject flag...
> >
> > It took lots of time to pit/rtc to stabilize, in order of seriously
> > consider the hpet emulation, lots of testing should be done.
>
> I will try to look into this. Since HPET is edge-triggered, looks like
> this problem is of a different nature than PIT. Is this a solid failure
> or intermittent?
>
At least for v2.6.30 in my box, it always fails... Of course, I believe the
chance of successful injecting enough interrupt depends on the many factors.
So I think out target can be: not far behind what PIT can do...
--
regards
Yang, Sheng
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-01-07 3:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2010-01-06 9:48 The HPET issue on Linux Sheng Yang
2010-01-06 10:09 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-01-06 10:23 ` Dor Laor
2010-01-06 18:36 ` Beth Kon
2010-01-06 19:20 ` Beth Kon
2010-01-06 19:23 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-01-06 19:44 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-01-06 19:51 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-01-06 20:37 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-01-06 22:42 ` Anthony Liguori
2010-01-07 6:45 ` Gleb Natapov
2010-01-07 3:01 ` Sheng Yang [this message]
2010-02-02 18:13 ` No longer working on HPET Beth Kon
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=201001071101.05049.sheng@linux.intel.com \
--to=sheng@linux.intel.com \
--cc=dlaor@redhat.com \
--cc=eak@us.ibm.com \
--cc=gleb@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).