Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 7 Oct 2009 15:36:58 -0700 (PDT) | From | Dan Magenheimer <> | Subject | RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation |
| |
> Then they will get incorrect timing once they are live migrated.
I've posted a proposed (OS-independent) solution for that and am (slowly) in the process of implementing it.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Avi Kivity [mailto:avi@redhat.com] > Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:08 PM > To: Dan Magenheimer > Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Xen-devel; Kurt Hackel; > the arch/x86 maintainers; Linux Kernel Mailing List; Glauber > de Oliveira > Costa; Keir Fraser; Zach Brown; Chris Mason > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall > implementation > > > On 10/07/2009 10:48 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote: > >> We can support them by falling back to the kernel. I'm a > bit worried > >> about the kernel playing with the hypervisor's version field. It's > >> better to introduce yet a new version for the kernel, and > check both. > >> > > On Nehalem, apps that need timestamp information at a high > > frequency will likely use rdtsc/rdtscp directly. > > > > > > Then they will get incorrect timing once they are live migrated. > > -- > I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this > signature is too narrow to contain. > > >
| |