From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: [patch 2/3] KVM: x86: add option to advance tscdeadline hrtimer expiration Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2015 22:44:03 +0100 Message-ID: <54AEFA23.3030201@redhat.com> References: <20141223205841.410988818@redhat.com> <20141223210046.824105975@redhat.com> <20150105181235.GA5462@potion.brq.redhat.com> <20150108174135.GA19806@amt.cnet> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Luiz Capitulino , Rik van Riel To: Marcelo Tosatti , Radim Krcmar Return-path: Received: from mail-we0-f171.google.com ([74.125.82.171]:60852 "EHLO mail-we0-f171.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752089AbbAHVoJ (ORCPT ); Thu, 8 Jan 2015 16:44:09 -0500 Received: by mail-we0-f171.google.com with SMTP id u56so4816018wes.2 for ; Thu, 08 Jan 2015 13:44:07 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20150108174135.GA19806@amt.cnet> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/01/2015 18:41, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > Paolo? > > > And cover letter is a bit misleading: The condition does nothing to > > guarantee TSC based __delay() loop. (Right now, __delay() = delay_tsc() > > whenever the hardware has TSC, regardless of stability, thus always.) > > OK. Yes, because of this it is unnecessary to check for stable TSC. I'll remove that. Paolo