From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59025) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agGH3-00029F-2s for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:34:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1agGH2-0007vq-BQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:34:25 -0400 References: <0eb543c0917bac416a18fc9daf97f5ba4e61ce1f.1454169735.git.digetx@gmail.com> From: Dmitry Osipenko Message-ID: <56E9A727.7080807@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:34:15 +0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v12 8/9] hw/ptimer: Perform delayed tick instead of immediate if delta = 0 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Crosthwaite Cc: Peter Maydell , qemu-arm , QEMU Developers 09.03.2016 00:08, Peter Crosthwaite пишет: > On Sat, Jan 30, 2016 at 8:43 AM, Dmitry Osipenko wrote: >> It might be necessary by some emulated HW to perform the tick after one >> period if delta = 0. Given that it is much less churny to implement immediate >> tick by the ptimer user itself, let's make ptimer do the delayed tick. >> > > Isn't this related to previous patch? It is kind of a rounding problem Ah, you probably meant "Legalize running with delta = load = 0 and abort on period = 0" patch. Yes, they could be squashed. I chose wrong policy at first time, further added MPtimer tests revealed it. -- Dmitry