From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] Fix time drift of rtc clock + general support Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:15:25 +0200 Message-ID: <47E7550D.3070706@qumranet.com> References: <1206282453.18800.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200803231619.32472.paul@codesourcery.com> <1206312059.30051.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200803232329.10474.paul@codesourcery.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm-devel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org To: Paul Brook Return-path: In-Reply-To: <200803232329.10474.paul@codesourcery.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net Errors-To: kvm-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net List-Id: kvm.vger.kernel.org Paul Brook wrote: > >>> a new timer will be fired to try inject it again soon (==0.1msec) >>> > > If the guest is missing interrupts, the chances of a 0.1ms interval working > are not great. Most likely It's either going trigger immediately, or be > delayed significantly and you're going to end up even further behind. > If 0.1 ms is within qemu's timeslice, then qemu should get the wakeup on time (assuming a host with high resolution timers). > If triggering immediately is OK then why not do that all the time? > Triggering immediately doesn't help, the guest likely has interrupts blocked processing the same interrupt. > If triggering immediately is not acceptable then you're still going to loose > interrupts. > You're still accounting for them, so if the load decreases eventually it's going to catch up. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/