From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: konrad.wilk@oracle.com (Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk) Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 11:58:40 -0400 Subject: [PATCH v7 0/6] xen/arm/arm64: CONFIG_PARAVIRT and stolen ticks accounting In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130628155840.GA13468@phenom.dumpdata.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 12:19:54PM +0100, Stefano Stabellini wrote: > Hi all, > this patch series introduces stolen ticks accounting for Xen on ARM and > ARM64. > Stolen ticks are clocksource ticks that have been "stolen" from the cpu, > typically because Linux is running in a virtual machine and the vcpu has > been descheduled. > To account for these ticks we introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT and pv_time_ops > so that we can make use of: > > kernel/sched/cputime.c:steal_account_process_tick > > > Stefano Stabellini (6): > xen: move xen_setup_runstate_info and get_runstate_snapshot to drivers/xen/time.c > kernel: missing include in cputime.c > arm: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops > arm64: introduce CONFIG_PARAVIRT, PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING and pv_time_ops > core: remove ifdef CONFIG_PARAVIRT > xen/arm: account for stolen ticks > > arch/arm/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++ > arch/arm/include/asm/paravirt.h | 20 ++++++++ > arch/arm/kernel/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm/kernel/paravirt.c | 25 ++++++++++ > arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c | 21 +++++++++ > arch/arm64/Kconfig | 20 ++++++++ > arch/arm64/include/asm/paravirt.h | 20 ++++++++ > arch/arm64/kernel/Makefile | 1 + > arch/arm64/kernel/paravirt.c | 25 ++++++++++ > arch/ia64/xen/time.c | 48 +++----------------- > arch/x86/xen/time.c | 76 +------------------------------ This is going to hit some of the patches that David has sent to tglx, I think. You might want to try to rebase on top of them (tip/time/for-xen, or something like that ) when they are ready. But for the Xen generic maintainer I am OK with these changes so you can stick Acked-by on them. Are you thinking to push them yourself or via the arm64 maintainer?