From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KzHSS-0001vg-O1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:04:32 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1KzHSB-0001jI-MK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:04:20 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40514 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KzHSB-0001iJ-9G
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:04:15 -0500
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:35456)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1KzHQd-0007kZ-Rt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:02:40 -0500
Message-ID: <49174F78.4070002@redhat.com>
Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:00:40 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RESEND][PATCH 0/3] Fix guest time drift under heavy
	load.
References: <20081029152236.14831.15193.stgit@dhcp-1-237.local>	<20081106081206.GD3820@redhat.com>
	<4912FAE5.9010100@codemonkey.ws>	<200811061424.43689.paul@codesourcery.com>	<491301C9.40506@codemonkey.ws>
	<20081106145142.GA29861@redhat.com>	<49130F54.4060907@codemonkey.ws>	<20081108083620.GB19381@redhat.com>	<20081109074037.GA32281@redhat.com>
	<4917120F.4080000@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4917120F.4080000@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
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.gnu.org/pipermail/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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>

Anthony Liguori wrote:
>
> Yeah, this is what I would expect.  This is why we'll probably have to 
> do some sort of interrupt catch-up.  But I'd like to make sure we have 
> the idle host stuff figured out because I don't see a reason why we 
> should lose ticks.  I don't want to mask other problems with something 
> like TDF.
>

Even an idle host is never truly idle.

-- 
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.