>>> On 13.03.19 at 14:51, <o...@aepfle.de> wrote: > Am Wed, 13 Mar 2019 03:18:39 -0600 > schrieb "Jan Beulich" <jbeul...@suse.com>: > >> > + if ( tmp >= VTSC_MEASUREMENT_INACCURACY_RANGE_KHZ ) >> > + tmp -= VTSC_MEASUREMENT_INACCURACY_RANGE_KHZ; >> The discontinuity is still there, and so far you've failed to explain >> why a discontinuity is what you want here. > > This exists to make sure the non-emulated case stays within the PPM range.
Staying within range is orthogonal to the introduction of any discontinuities. I can only draw the same table again: tmp (initial) | tmp (result) 0 | 0 1 | 1 ... 198 | 198 199 | 199 200 | 0 201 | 1 ... 398 | 198 399 | 199 400 | 200 401 | 201 ... 400000 | 399800 Why is there this big step between 199 and 200? And why does an initial value of 200 get handled the same as an initial value of 0, but then 400 doesn't get handled this same way again? And (seeing the last row I've added now) how is the result staying in range? Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
