From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=46246 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OIO84-000203-3l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2010 11:39:17 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OINKE-0005DW-5d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2010 10:47:46 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:4333)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1OINKD-000338-Rq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 29 May 2010 10:47:46 -0400
Date: Sat, 29 May 2010 17:46:41 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [RFT][PATCH 07/15] qemu_irq: Add IRQ handlers
	with delivery feedback
Message-ID: <20100529144641.GF3604@redhat.com>
References: <AANLkTimP25BI3UI_5Zts3uZ4JUG2nq18R8ncOsTrj5v1@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BFD8010.3010001@web.de>
	<AANLkTim6zZYtkPkJxlZHbHKWhWXcU-RlpvgeyMUriBj1@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100527061335.GE5474@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTinwXJ1dwWoVZLTQOrK2byczn97TzHkh1wdjOGjQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100528073135.GC17805@redhat.com>
	<AANLkTin4ib3PmnKGHAVIwVpLeyPMz03xx-MVjOvlUba5@mail.gmail.com>
	<20100528204746.GC3604@redhat.com> <4C00C921.2060809@web.de>
	<AANLkTin5oH2PzY_4K6RnWFjcYyHlIFkTghTzgC-qpkix@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5oH2PzY_4K6RnWFjcYyHlIFkTghTzgC-qpkix@mail.gmail.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Juan Quintela <quintela@redhat.com>

On Sat, May 29, 2010 at 09:35:30AM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> > I still don't see how the alternative is supposed to simplify our life
> > or improve the efficiency of the de-coalescing workaround. It's rather
> > problematic like Gleb pointed out: The de-coalescing logic needs to be
> > informed about periodicity changes that can only be delivered along
> > IRQs. So what to do with the backlog when the timer is stopped?
> 
> What happens with the current design? Gleb only mentioned the
> frequency change, I thought that was not so big problem. But I don't
> think this case should be allowed happen at all, it can't exist on
> real HW.
> 
Hm, why it can't exist on real HW? Do simple exercise. Run WindowsXP
inside QEMU, connect with gdb to QEMU process and check what frequency
RTC configured with (hint: it will be 64Hz), now run video inside the
guest and check frequency again (hint: it will be 1Khz).

--
			Gleb.