On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:47:40AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 16:46 +0300, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 10:36:12AM -0300, Glauber Costa wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2011-05-04 at 06:09 -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > > > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 04:06:59AM -0400, Ulrich Obergfell wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Hi Marcelo,
> > > > >
> > > > > > Whats prev_period for, since in practice the period will not change
> > > > > > between interrupts (OS programs comparator once, or perhaps twice
> > > > > > during bootup) ?
> > > > >
> > > > > 'prev_period' is needed if a guest o/s changes the comparator period
> > > > > 'on the fly' (without stopping and restarting the timer).
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > guest o/s changes period
> > > > > |
> > > > > ti(n-1) | ti(n) ti(n+1)
> > > > > | v | |
> > > > > +---------------------+------------------------------+
> > > > >
> > > > > <--- prev_period ---> <---------- period ---------->
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The idea is that each timer interrupt represents a certain quantum
> > > > > of time (the comparator period). If a guest o/s changes the period
> > > > > between timer interrupt 'n-1' and timer interrupt 'n', I think the
> > > > > new value should not take effect before timer interrupt 'n'. Timer
> > > > > interrupt 'n' still represents the old/previous quantum, and timer
> > > > > interrupt 'n+1' represents the new quantum.
> > > > >
> > > > > Hence, the patch decrements 'ticks_not_accounted' by 'prev_period'
> > > > > and sets 'prev_period' to 'period' when an interrupt was delivered
> > > > > to the guest o/s.
> > > > >
> > > > > + irq_delivered = update_irq(t, 1);
> > > > > + if (irq_delivered) {
> > > > > + t->ticks_not_accounted -= t->prev_period;
> > > > > + t->prev_period = t->period;
> > > > > + } else {
> > > > >
> > > > > Most of the time 'prev_period' is equal to 'period'. It should only
> > > > > be different in the scenario shown above.
> > > >
> > > > OK, makes sense. You should probably reset ticks_not_accounted to zero
> > > > on HPET initialization (for example, to avoid miscalibration when
> > > > kexec'ing a new kernel).
> > >
> > > Everybody resetting the machine in anyway is expected to force devices
> > > to be reinitialized, right ?
> > > I may be wrong, but I was under the impression that kexec would do this
> > > as well. In this case, the reset function should be enough.
> > >
> > kexec does not reset a machine. That's the whole point of kexec in
> > fact.
> Sure thing, but doesn't it force the initialization routine of the devices themselves, without
> going through the bios ?
>
It just starts new kernel. New kernel's init runs as usual and
re-initialize everything. No it doesn't go through the BIOS. What for?
Actually I happily use kexec on IBM blade server where BIOS run takes no
less then 5 minutes and kexec reboots instantly.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
