lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [kvm-devel] [PATCH] raise tsc clocksource rating
Dan Hecht wrote:
> Not really. In the case hardware TSC is perfect, the paravirt time
> counter can be implemented directly in terms of hardware TSC; there is
> no loss in optimization. This is done transparently. And virtual TSC
> can be implemented this way too.
>
> The real improvement that a paravirt clocksource offers over the TSC
> clocksource is that the guest does not need to measure the TSC frequency
> itself against some other constant frequency source (which is
> problematic on a virtual machine). Instead, the paravirt clocksource
> queries the hypervisor for the frequency of the counter. As you know,
> with clocksource style kernels, it's important to get this frequency
> correct, or else the guest will have long-term time drift.
>
>

In addition, a paravirt clocksource can compensate for events like vcpu
migration to another host cpu. So I agree: a paravirt clocksource is
always better than or equal to the tsc.


--
Any sufficiently difficult bug is indistinguishable from a feature.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-10-30 05:29    [W:1.425 / U:0.004 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site