From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier) Date: Tue, 25 Apr 2017 11:21:21 +0100 Subject: [PATCH V9 1/3] irq: Allow to pass the IRQF_TIMER flag with percpu irq request In-Reply-To: <20170425094927.GB16888@mai> References: <1493042494-14057-1-git-send-email-daniel.lezcano@linaro.org> <398f3f3d-c567-0f1f-1a43-9b8d5805d5fd@arm.com> <20170424185909.GD2137@mai> <92e2a022-93d4-d4f3-78af-c9b5d51bb867@arm.com> <20170424195948.GE2137@mai> <16042494-2e67-e1a5-b9f6-af57e349d8a7@arm.com> <20170425083451.GA16888@mai> <20170425094927.GB16888@mai> Message-ID: To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 25/04/17 10:49, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On Tue, Apr 25, 2017 at 10:10:12AM +0100, Marc Zyngier wrote: [...] >>> +static inline void setup_timings(struct irq_desc *desc, struct irqaction *act) >>> +{ >>> + /* >>> + * We don't need the measurement because the idle code already >>> + * knows the next expiry event. >>> + */ >>> + if (act->flags & __IRQF_TIMER) >>> + return; >> >> And that's where this is really wrong for the KVM guest timer. As I >> said, this timer is under complete control of the guest, and the rest of >> the system doesn't know about it. KVM itself will only find out when the >> vcpu does a VM exit for a reason or another, and will just save/restore >> the state in order to be able to give the timer to another guest. >> >> The idle code is very much *not* aware of anything concerning that guest >> timer. > > Just for my own curiosity, if there are two VM (VM1 and VM2). VM1 sets a timer1 > at