From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754982AbaLVOJm (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:09:42 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:36034 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1754560AbaLVOJl (ORCPT ); Mon, 22 Dec 2014 09:09:41 -0500 Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2014 12:09:24 -0200 From: Marcelo Tosatti To: Andy Lutomirski Cc: Gleb Natapov , Paolo Bonzini , kvm list , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" Subject: Re: Cleaning up the KVM clock Message-ID: <20141222140924.GA10176@amt.cnet> References: <20141222133430.GA23631@amt.cnet> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20141222133430.GA23631@amt.cnet> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Dec 22, 2014 at 11:34:30AM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote: > > It would be even nicer, though, if we could do much the same thing but > > without worrying about which vcpu we're on. > > > > Thoughts? Am I missing some considerations here? > > Maybe we can find another optimization opportunities? Perhaps RDTSCP rather than getcpu is a win?