From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] Introduce a workqueue to deliver PIT timer
 interrupts.
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2010 11:40:22 -0300
Message-ID: <20100609144022.GA9680@amt.cnet>
References: <1276019703-18136-1-git-send-email-clalance@redhat.com>
 <1276019703-18136-2-git-send-email-clalance@redhat.com>
 <4C0EFE20.1080508@redhat.com>
 <20100609132335.GA7396@amt.cnet>
 <4C0FA24F.60204@redhat.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>,
	Chris Lalancette <clalance@redhat.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org
To: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:29432 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1757904Ab0FIOpO (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:45:14 -0400
Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11])
	by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o59EjExZ011554
	(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK)
	for <kvm@vger.kernel.org>; Wed, 9 Jun 2010 10:45:14 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4C0FA24F.60204@redhat.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Wed, Jun 09, 2010 at 05:16:47PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 04:23 PM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> >>Is there any chance that using a workqueue might help the problem of
> >>hrtimers firing too quickly?  I wanted to return HR_NORESTART from
> >>pit_timer_fn always, then restart the hrtimer on delivery, but
> >>because of unreliable delivery, it wasn't clear how to do that.
> >>
> >>Perhaps the workqueue can be used to restart the timer instead,
> >>avoiding problems of impossibly small timeouts causing hrtimers to
> >>run amok.
> >It should be rearmed on ACK ideally. How come delivery is unreliable?
> >
> >BTW, a massive amount of hrtimers (_single_ non-tickless 32-vcpu guest
> >with LAPIC) results in:
> >
> >hrtimer: interrupt took 122448 ns
> >
> >in the host. So don't even need impossibly small timeouts :(
> 
> Any idea where that came from?  Even looping on vcpus, that took 4
> usec per vcpu.

The rearming of timers (that emulate LAPIC) cause the host hrtimer
interrupt handler to re-execute its "run expired timers" loop. If timing
is unfortunate, it'll have to do that several times.