From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Keir Fraser Subject: Re: [RFC] Physical hot-add cpus and TSC Date: Fri, 28 May 2010 08:03:42 +0100 Message-ID: References: <789F9655DD1B8F43B48D77C5D30659731E78D90A@shsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <789F9655DD1B8F43B48D77C5D30659731E78D90A@shsmsx501.ccr.corp.intel.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: "Jiang, Yunhong" , Dan Magenheimer , "Xen-Devel (xen-devel@lists.xensource.com)" , Ian Pratt List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On 28/05/2010 07:29, "Jiang, Yunhong" wrote: >> It is impossible to meet that level of TSC consistency when doing CPU >> physical-add, without emulating all guest TSCs. We may need to add that as >> an option, at least, to keep a small class of apps that care (like Oracle's >> DB, we assume) happy. > > So a option to make TSC_MODE_DEFAULT as d->arch.vtsc=0 ?. > When CPU_hotadd, we should at least warning if that option is not set, am I > right? Xen-unstable:21469. -- Keir