Re: [RFC 0/4] KVM in-kernel PM Timer implementation

[Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>]

On 12/14/2010 02:09 PM, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> Hi,
>
> This is an RFC through which I would like to get feedback on how the
> idea of in-kernel PM Timer would be received.
>
> The current implementation of PM Timer emulation is 'heavy-weight'
> because the code resides in qemu userspace. Guest operating systems
> that use PM Timer as a clock source (for example, older versions of
> Linux that do not have paravirtualized clock) would benefit from an
> in-kernel PM Timer emulation.
>
> Parts 1 thru 4 of this RFC contain experimental source code which
> I recently used to investigate the performance benefit. In a Linux
> guest, I was running a program that calls gettimeofday() 'n' times
> in a loop (the PM Timer register is read during each call). With
> in-kernel PM Timer, I observed a significant reduction of program
> execution time.
>
> The experimental code emulates the PM Timer register in KVM kernel.
> All other components of ACPI PM remain in qemu userspace. Also, the
> 'timer carry interrupt' feature is not implemented in-kernel. If a
> guest operating system needs to enable the 'timer carry interrupt',
> the code takes care that PM Timer emulation falls back to userspace.
> However, I think the design of the code has sufficient flexibility,
> so that anyone who would want to add the 'timer carry interrupt'
> feature in-kernel could try to do so later on.
>

What is the motivation for this?  Are there any important guests that 
use the pmtimer?

If anything I'd expect hpet or the Microsoft synthetic timers to be a 
lot more important.

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