Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1762492AbZJOO70 (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:59:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1762378AbZJOO7Z (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:59:25 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48549 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756860AbZJOO7Y (ORCPT ); Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:59:24 -0400 Date: Thu, 15 Oct 2009 11:58:56 -0300 From: Glauber Costa To: Avi Kivity Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] allow userspace to adjust kvmclock offset Message-ID: <20091015145855.GI8092@mothafucka.localdomain> References: <1254849896-3947-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4AD2EE86.50807@redhat.com> <20091013122828.GZ8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <4AD4730C.9010305@redhat.com> <20091013124638.GC8092@mothafucka.localdomain> <4AD670FC.7010004@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AD670FC.7010004@redhat.com> X-ChuckNorris: True User-Agent: Jack Bauer Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1656 Lines: 39 On Thu, Oct 15, 2009 at 09:46:52AM +0900, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 10/13/2009 09:46 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 13, 2009 at 03:31:08PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 10/13/2009 03:28 PM, Glauber Costa wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> Do we want an absolute or relative adjustment? >>>>> >>>>> >>>> What exactly do you mean? >>>> >>>> >>> Absolute adjustment: clock = t >>> Relative adjustment: clock += t >>> >> The delta is absolute, but the adjustment in the clock is relative. >> >> So we pick the difference between what userspace is passing us and what >> we currently have, then relatively adds up so we can make sure we won't >> go back or suffer a too big skew. >> > > The motivation for relative adjustment is when you have a jitter > resistant place to gather timing information (like the kernel, which can > disable interrupts and preemption), then pass it on to kvm without > losing information due to scheduling. For migration there is no such > place since it involves two hosts, but it makes sense to support > relative adjustments. Since we added the padding you asked for, we could use that bit of information to define whether it will be a relative or absolute adjustment, then. Right now, I don't see the point of implementing a code path that will be completely untested. I'd leave it this way until someone comes up with a need. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/