Re: [PATCH] clockevents/drivers/i8253: Do not zero timer counter in shutdown

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 22:00 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 01 2024 at 20:21, David Woodhouse wrote:
> > On Thu, 2024-08-01 at 21:06 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > Yes. So the sequence should stop KVM from trying to inject
> > > interrupts. Maybe someone fixes it to actually stop fiddling with the
> > > counter too :)
> > 
> > I don't think we care about the counter value, as that's *calculated*
> > on demand when the guest tries to read from it. Or, more to the point,
> > *if* the guest tries to read from it.
> > 
> > As opposed to the interrupt, which is a timer in the VMM which takes a
> > CPU out of guest mode and incurs steal time, just to waggle a pin on
> > the emulated PICs for no good reason.
> 
> Well, if the implementation still arms the timer in the background, then
> it matters because that has to be processed too. I haven't looked at
> that code at all, so what do I know.

It only needs to arm the timer if it needs to send an interrupt.
Otherwise, it's all event-driven from the guest interaction.

> > > > I'm glad I decided to export a function from the clocksource driver and
> > > > just *call* it from pit_timer_init() though. Means we can bikeshed the
> > > > shutdown sequence in *one* place and it isn't duplicated.
> > > 
> > > Right. Though we don't have to make this conditional on hypervisor I
> > > think.
> > 
> > Right, we don't *have* to. I vacillated about that and almost ripped it
> > out before sending the patch, but came down on the side of "hardware is
> > a steaming pile of crap and if I don't *have* to change its behaviour,
> > let's not touch it".
> > 
> > I justify my cowardice on the basis that it doesn't *matter* if a
> > hardware implementation is still toggling the IRQ pin; in that case
> > it's only a few irrelevant transistors which are busy, and it doesn't
> > translate to steal time.
> 
> On real hardware it translates to power...

Perhaps, although I'd guess it's a negligible amount. Still, happy to
be brave and make it unconditional. Want a new version of the patch?

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature


[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux