2016-02-25 20:11+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> 2016-02-25 14:38+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>>> On 19/02/2016 15:44, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> So we can change QEMU's kvm-i8254 to accept "slew" and warn if
>>> "delay" is given.
>> **
>> QEMU 4e4fa398db69 ("qdev: Introduce lost tick policy property") defi
> 2016-02-25 14:38+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> On 19/02/2016 15:44, Radim Krčmář wrote:
The resulting injections are:
> - for catchup, which QEMU calls slew: 0, 42, 51, 60, 80.
>>
>> I think we agree that 0, 42, 43, 60, 80 is also a "catchup"/"slew"
>> policy.
>
> We do. (Libvirt "catchup"
I think I understand your definitions of tick policies and I remain
convinced that libvirt defines them differently.
Would you prefer that I got a confirmation on the libvirt list before
continuing the discussion here?
Two relevant parts of my reply that don't depend on libvirt's reply are
marked
On 19/02/2016 15:44, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> The resulting injections are:
>>> - for catchup, which QEMU calls slew: 0, 42, 51, 60, 80.
I think we agree that 0, 42, 43, 60, 80 is also a "catchup"/"slew"
policy. So we can change QEMU's kvm-i8254 to accept "slew" and warn if
"delay" is given.
In
On Fri, Feb 19, 2016 at 15:44:23 +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> [Cc'd Peter, the last guy that touched timers in libvirt, because he
> might know what tick policies are supposed to be.]
I found the following RFC that describes the design of timer access in
libvirt:
http://www.redhat.com/archives/l
[Cc'd Peter, the last guy that touched timers in libvirt, because he
might know what tick policies are supposed to be.]
2016-02-18 18:55+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 18/02/2016 18:33, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 18/02/2016 17:56, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>>> 2016-02-18 17:13+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
On 1
On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>
> Even though there is a chance of regressions, I think we can fix the
> LVT0 NMI bug without introducing a new tick policy.
I agree, but please change the KVM_CAP_REINJECT_CONTROL check to return
2. This way we can make QEMU reject old kernels when t
On 18/02/2016 18:33, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 18/02/2016 17:56, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> 2016-02-18 17:13+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>>> On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
Discard policy uses ack_notifiers to prevent injection of PIT interrupts
before EOI from the last one.
Thi
On 18/02/2016 17:56, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2016-02-18 17:13+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> > On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> > > Discard policy uses ack_notifiers to prevent injection of PIT interrupts
> > > before EOI from the last one.
> > >
> > > This patch changes the policy to always try t
2016-02-18 17:13+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
>> Discard policy uses ack_notifiers to prevent injection of PIT interrupts
>> before EOI from the last one.
>>
>> This patch changes the policy to always try to deliver the interrupt,
>> which makes a difference when
On 17/02/2016 20:14, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> Discard policy uses ack_notifiers to prevent injection of PIT interrupts
> before EOI from the last one.
>
> This patch changes the policy to always try to deliver the interrupt,
> which makes a difference when its vector is in ISR.
> Old implementation
11 matches
Mail list logo
