>>> On 03.05.17 at 16:26, wrote:
> Looking at __update_vcpu_system_time(), I am not sure we are reporting
> correct values on (PV & !vtsc). I think it should be t->tsc_scale.
Indeed. I wouldn't be surprised at all if it was simply assumed by
the author to only be used by HVM guests. And the issue
>>> On 03.05.17 at 16:06, wrote:
> On 03/05/17 14:57, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> Is there a reason why we don't document hypervisor time leaf (3, or is
>> it 4?) in public/arch-x86/cpuid.h?
>
> (The leaf with the number 3. The way the documentation refers to leaves
> and numeric values is very co
On 05/03/2017 10:06 AM, Andrew Cooper wrote:
> On 03/05/17 14:57, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>> Is there a reason why we don't document hypervisor time leaf (3, or is
>> it 4?) in public/arch-x86/cpuid.h?
> (The leaf with the number 3. The way the documentation refers to leaves
> and numeric values is
On 03/05/17 14:57, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
> Is there a reason why we don't document hypervisor time leaf (3, or is
> it 4?) in public/arch-x86/cpuid.h?
(The leaf with the number 3. The way the documentation refers to leaves
and numeric values is very counter-intuitive. I half remember a plan to
