WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
   
 
 
Xen 
 
Home Products Support Community News
 
   
 

xen-devel

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode that disables pending missed ti

To: Keir Fraser <Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode that disables pending missed ticks
From: Dave Winchell <dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2007 09:39:00 -0500
Cc: "Dong, Eddie" <eddie.dong@xxxxxxxxx>, Dave Winchell <dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Shan, Haitao" <haitao.shan@xxxxxxxxx>, xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Jiang, Yunhong" <yunhong.jiang@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Mon, 19 Nov 2007 10:18:50 -0800
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <472F2A7B.4020308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <C352A755.FE8B%Keir.Fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxx> <472F2A7B.4020308@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7-1.1.fc4 (X11/20050929)
Keir,

Attached is a fix for pt_process_missed_ticks().
Without this fix, systems run very erratically and some
guests panic on boot complaining that timer interrupts
are not working. As you can imagine.

Also, I have some longer term measurements of the
accuracy of the sync and async methods.
The hardware is an eight cpu AMD box. Two eight
vcpu guests, rh4u4-64 and sles9sp3-64.
All vcpus running loads.

Method   Test duration          Clock errors

SYNC       56000 sec         6.4, 6.7 sec   (.012%)
ASYNC      52000 sec         13, 19 sec     (.036%)

More testing should be done to validate the significance
of this difference.

regards,
Dave


Dave Winchell wrote:


Keir Fraser wrote:

On 3/11/07 21:17, "Dave Winchell" <dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Thanks for applying the fixes in the last submit.
In moving the test for no_missed_tick_accounting into
pt_process_missed_ticks()
you forgot to add the scheduling part.


Actually it was deliberate, but clearly it was one code simplification too far: thanks for spotting it! I'll go the async route, but we do need to set
pending_intr_nr to 1. We can't leave that out -- the point of the async
route is to send a tick to the vcpu immediately, since it hasn't had one for more than a tick period. If we wait for the timeout to do that then we have
to wait a whole extra period after the vcpu is re-scheduled.

Attached is my proposed patch. I think it's quite neat. :-)
It looks good to me.

thanks,
Dave

-- Keir



diff -r dfe9c0c10a2c xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c
--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c    Mon Nov 05 13:23:55 2007 +0000
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c    Wed Nov 07 08:55:45 2007 -0500
@@ -59,7 +59,7 @@ static void pt_process_missed_ticks(stru
     if ( mode_is(pt->vcpu->domain, no_missed_tick_accounting) )
     {
         pt->pending_intr_nr = 1;
-        pt->scheduled = now + pt->scheduled;
+        pt->scheduled = now + pt->period;
     }
     else
     {
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>