Re: [RFC][PATCH 1/3] Introduce a workqueue to deliver PIT timer interrupts.

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 06/10/2010 12:17 AM, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On 06/09/2010 03:23 AM, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 08, 2010 at 04:36:16PM -1000, Zachary Amsden wrote:
>>>> +    pt->timer.function = pit_timer_fn;
>>>>
>>> I am happy to see this.  I thought kvm_timer_fn was a step
>>> backwards; it was too general of a function to justify the savings
>>> of 20 some odd lines of code.
>> This was not done to save 20 lines of code:
>>
>> http://www.mail-archive.com/kvm@vger.kernel.org/msg18640.html
>>
>>> 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?
>
> Due to the various ways IRQ can be latched or not with different 
> routing.  If you program a very short timeout, it should fire even if 
> the guest is slow to respond:
>
> i..i..i..i..i..i..i
> ..a...a...a...a
>
> if you don't restart right away, only on ack, you can risk the refire 
> of the interrupt getting lost, especially if the guest happens to 
> reprogram the PIT while this is happening...
>

Restarting on ack has the big advantage of not rearming at all if the 
guest doesn't ack, i.e. a timer left running talking to a masked irq pin.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function