From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: tupeng212 Subject: Re: [PATCH, RFC v2] x86/HVM: assorted RTC emulation adjustments (was Re: Big Bug:Time in VM goes slower...) Date: Thu, 16 Aug 2012 22:27:12 +0800 Message-ID: <2012081622270760996017@gmail.com> References: <502A3BBC0200007800094B68@nat28.tlf.novell.com>, <2012081522045495397713@gmail.com> <2012081522121039050717@gmail.com>, <502CC9D702000078000955B9@nat28.tlf.novell.com> <201208162143289686654@gmail.com>, <502D1C8A0200007800095851@nat28.tlf.novell.com> Reply-To: tupeng212 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============6051636379622459400==" Return-path: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Jan Beulich Cc: Yang Z Zhang , Tim Deegan , Keir Fraser , xen-devel List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --===============6051636379622459400== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart846642126284_=----" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_001_NextPart846642126284_=---- Content-Type: text/plain; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 T2theSwgc29tZSBiYWNrIGFuZCBmb3J0aCBpcyB0aGVyZSBpbiBhbnkgY2FzZSwgYnV0IHdpdGhv dXQNCmtub3dpbmcgdGhlIHRpbWUgZGlzdGFuY2UgYmV0d2VlbiB0aGUgaW5kaXZpZHVhbCBpbnN0 YW5jZXMgaXQncw0KaGFyZCB0byB0ZWxsIHdoZXRoZXIgd2hhdCBJJ20gdGhpbmtpbmcgb2YgbWln aHQgaGVscC4NCg0KPiBiZXNpZGVzLCBJIGNoZWNrZWQgbXkgZm9ybWVyIHNpbXBsZSB0ZXN0ZXIg dGhpcyBtb3JuaW5nIGFmdGVyIGl0IHJhbiBmb3IgYSANCj4gd2hvbGUgbmlnaHQsIGl0IGxhZ2dl ZCBtdWNoLg0KDQpDb3VsZCB5b3UgYnR3IHF1YW50aWZ5IHRoZSBsYWdnaW5nPyANCi8vIEkgZGlk bid0IHBheSBhdHRlbnRpb24gdG8gaXQsIGJ1dCBhYm91dCBoYWxmIGFuIGhvdXIncyBsYWdnaW5n IGNlcnRhaW5seSBleGlzdC4gDQp3aGVuIHlvdSB3aWxsIGdvIGhvbWUsIHlvdSBjYW4gYWxzbyBo YXZlIGEgdHJ5IHRvIHNlZSByZXN1bHQgdG9tb3Jyb3cgbW9ybmluZy4NCg0KWW91ciB0ZXN0ZXIg c2V0cyBvbmx5IGEgc2luZ2xlLCBjb25zdGFudCByYXRlIHJlcGVhdGVkbHksIHJpZ2h0PyAvL3ll cywgdGhlIHNpbXBsZXN0IHRlc3QganVzdCBzZXR0aW5nIGEgc2luZ2xlIDEwMDAwIGRvd24gcmVw ZWF0bHkuDQpJZiBzbywgdGhlbiB0aGUgdGhvdWdodCBvZiBhZGp1c3RtZW50IGxpa2VseSB3b24n dCBoZWxwLg== ------=_001_NextPart846642126284_=---- Content-Type: text/html; charset="gb2312" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Okay, some back and forth is there = ;in any case, but without

knowing the time distance between the i= ndividual instances it's

hard to tell whether what I'm thinking&= nbsp;of might help.

> besides, I checked my former simpl= e tester this morning after it ran for&= nbsp;a

> whole night, it lagged much.

Could you btw quantify the lagging?

// I didn't pay attention to it, but about half an hour's laggin= g=20 certainly exist.

when you will go home, you can also have a try to see result tom= orrow=20 morning.

Your tester sets only a single, constan= t rate repeatedly, right?=20 //yes, the simplest test just setting a single 10000 down repeatly.

If so, then the thought of adjustment&n= bsp;likely won't help.

------=_001_NextPart846642126284_=------ --===============6051636379622459400== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel --===============6051636379622459400==--