On 2011-04-28 21:06, Zachary Amsden wrote: > On 04/28/2011 12:22 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 03:06:01AM -0400, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> And /me still wonders (like I did when this first popped up) if the >>> proper place of determining TSC stability really have to be KVM. >>> >>> If the Linux core fails to detect some instability and KVM has to jump >>> in, shouldn't we better improve the core's detection abilities and make >>> use of them in KVM? Conceptually this looks like we are currently just >>> working around a core deficit in KVM. >>> >> Yes, good question. Has this ever triggered on a real machine (not >> counting the suspend/resume issue in)? >> > > Yes... some platforms don't go haywire until you start using power > mangement, TSC is stable before that, but not afterwards, and depending > on the version of the kernel, KVM might detect this before the kernel does. > > Honestly, the code is obsolete, but still useful for those who build KVM > as an external module on older kernels using the kvm-kmod system. I'll happily accept patches that migrate any logic to kvm-kmod that the current kernel does not need it anymore. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
