On 5 October 2015 at 15:09, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On 03/10/2015 00:41, Peter Maydell wrote: >> > What I meant to ask was, do you see any reason for cpu_get_ticks() to >> > exist? >> > If no architecture besides i386 wants to use it, perhaps the code should be >> > moved there. >> >> OTOH various non-x86 things do use the closely related cpu_get_real_ticks(), >> and the implementation of cpu_get_ticks() is very closely related to >> the other clock code in cpus.c. > > cpu_get_real_ticks() is returning the host cycle counter; > cpu_get_ticks() is stopping/resuming it when the VM is stopped/resumed. > In other words, cpu_get_real_ticks() is to cpu_get_ticks() what > QEMU_CLOCK_REALTIME is to QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL.
...but it seems wrong to have anything in the simulation care about the host cycle counter, especially since on some hosts the underlying implementation is terrible. thanks -- PMM
