xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TS
> From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Saturday, May 14, 2011 1:17 AM
>
> > From: Tian, Kevin [mailto:kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on
> > X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE
> >
> > > From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx]
> > >
> > > Nevertheless, I feel I'm playing devil's advocate here and batting
> > > on
> > DanM's
> > > side for something I don't consider a major issue. If someone wants
> > to clean
> > > this up and come up with (possibly different and new) documented and
> > > consistently applied semantics for these TSC feature flags, please
> > > go
> > ahead and
> > > propose it. And we'll see who comes out to care and bat against it.
> >
> > I'll take a further look to understand it and then may send out a
> > cleanup patch later.
>
> Hi Kevin --
>
> Welcome back to xen-devel (after a two-year hiatus?)
yes, it's been a long time. :-)
>
> I'm not keeping up with xen-devel as frequently as I was in the past, so
> please
> cc me directly if you propose different semantics.
no problem. I knew you guys had multiple rounds of related discussions, and
I'll digest
them first.
>
> > How about a system without NONSTOP_TSC, but with deep cstate disabled?
> > This case we could still deem it as reliable.
>
> IIRC, this is not true on a multi-socket motherboard. Even though each socket
> has NONSTOP_TSC, they are using different crystals, correct?
>
it's true that sockets may use different crystals, and NONSTOP_TSC has nothing
to say
synchronization among sockets/cores. So it really depends on how you define a
'reliable':
is it reliable enough to be a Xen time source, or reliable enough to
passthrough to the
guest? I'll need to check current assumption and your previous discussions
first before
saying anything inappropriate. :-)
Thanks
Kevin
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, (continued)
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Tian, Kevin
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Jan Beulich
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Keir Fraser
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Tian, Kevin
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Keir Fraser
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Tian, Kevin
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Jan Beulich
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Dan Magenheimer
- RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE,
Tian, Kevin <=
- Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86, cpuidle: remove assertion on X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE, Keir Fraser
|
|
|