On 12/08/19 11:06, Wanpeng Li wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 18:24, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> On 09/08/19 07:45, Wanpeng Li wrote:
>>> From: Wanpeng Li <wanpengli@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Even if for realtime CPUs, cache line bounces, frequency scaling, presence
>>> of higher-priority RT tasks, etc can cause different response. These
>>> interferences should be considered and periodically revaluate whether
>>> or not the lapic_timer_advance_ns value is the best, do nothing if it is,
>>> otherwise recaluate again.
>>
>> How much fluctuation do you observe between different runs?
>
> Sometimes can ~1000 cycles after converting to guest tsc freq.
Hmm, I wonder if we need some kind of continuous smoothing. Something like
if (abs(advance_expire_delta) < LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_DONE) {
/* no update for random fluctuations */
return;
}
if (unlikely(timer_advance_ns > 5000))
timer_advance_ns = LAPIC_TIMER_ADVANCE_ADJUST_INIT;
apic->lapic_timer.timer_advance_ns = timer_advance_ns;
and removing all the timer_advance_adjust_done stuff. What do you think?
Paolo
