[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] raise tsc clocksource rating
Zachary Amsden wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 20:10 -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>> From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glauber@t60.localdomain>
>> tsc is very good time source (when it does not have drifts, does not
>> change it's frequency, i.e. when it works), so it should have its rating
>> raised to a value greater than, or equal 400.
>> Since it's being a tendency among paravirt clocksources to use values
>> around 400, we should declare tsc as even better: So we use 500.
> Why is the TSC better than a paravirt clocksource? In our case this is
> definitely inaccurate. Paravirt clocksources should be preferred to
> TSC, and both must be made available in hardware for platforms which do
> not support paravirt.
> Also, please cc all the paravirt developers on things related to
> paravirt, especially things with such broad effect. I think 400 is a
> good value for a perfect native clocksource. >400 should be reserved
> for super-real (i.e. paravirt) sources that should always be chosen over
> a hardware realistic implementation in a virtual environment.

Yes, agreed. The tsc is never the right thing to use if there's a
paravirt clocksource available.

What's wrong with rating it 300? What inferior clocksource does it lose
out to? Shouldn't that clocksource be lowered? (Why don't we just use
1 to 10?)

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-29 23:49    [W:0.100 / U:2.292 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site