Hi Dave --
Thanks for continuing to run tests!
Hmmm... I thought I had noticed that even though Linux will acknowledge
the existence of the pmtimer, it still prints:
time.c: Using PIT/TSC based timekeeping.
I will check again, but assuming the clocksource for our tests is
indeed pit, the huge difference in the results (yours vs ours) is
baffling. I wonder if the difference may be the underlying hardware.
Maybe we will try to ensure we can duplicate the results on a different
box.
So your testing was with stock 3.2.0 xen bits (what cset?) without
any of your [quote from below] "clock related tweaks that I haven't
submitted, because I'm still characterizing them"?
Could you also send detail on the rhel4u4-64 kernel you
are testing with, just to ensure we are not comparing apples
and oranges? (Perhaps there's some way we can even share the
identical disk image and vm.cfg file?)
And if our problem is indeed the pmtimer, I will need to submit
another patch to Keir to add an hvm pmtimer platform variable.
(Hmmm... I don't think he's even accepted the hpet variable patch
yet. I'll have to check.)
Thanks,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2008 9:00 AM
> To: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx
> Cc: Dave Winchell; Keir Fraser; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Deepak
> Patel
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode that
> disables pending
> missed ticks
>
>
> Hi Dan,
>
> I ran the ltp tests with 3.2 and found the errors
> for a 16 hour run to be:
>
> rh4u564 -9.9 sec (-.017%)
> rh4u464 -7.3 sec (-.013%)
>
> There were no cliffs and the drift was linear.
>
> I think the problem you had may be due to the use of the
> pm timer. If you still have the boot log, it would tell you.
>
> When I first tried a guest on 3.2 with "clocksource=pit nohpet"
> I noticed that it picked the pm timer. Adding "nopmtimer", the
> guest will pick the pit.
>
> The reason I didn't have the problem with our 3.1 base is that
> I had disabled the hpet and the pmtimer by not advertising them
> in the acpi tables. I did this so long ago, I forgot that I had to
> disable pmtimer as well as hpet.
>
> So, can you re-run your test with "clocksource=pit nohpet nopmtimer"?
> You should see this in the boot messages:
>
> time.c: Using PIT/TSC based timekeeping.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>
> Dave Winchell wrote:
>
> > Hi Dan,
> >
> > Over the weekend the drift was +18 seconds for each guest (no ntp).
> > The duration was 3900 minutes, so the error for each was +.0077%.
> > Looking back through the data, it appears to drift linearly at
> > this rate. I've attached a plot for rh4u5-64.
> >
> > This accuracy is better than what I've seen before (.03-.05%).
> > This may be due to the different load (ltp vs usex) or to one of the
> > changes I've made recently. I'll do some experimentation to see if
> > there is
> > a fix I should propose.
> >
> > This still doesn't address the radical drift you saw.
> > The next step for me is to run 3.2 and see if I can reproduce it.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Dave Winchell wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Dan,
> >>
> >> Sorry it took me so long, but I finally ran an ltp test today.
> >> Its on rh4u4-64. I'm using the defaults for ltp and using a script
> >> called runltp. I had a usex load on rh4u5-64. No ntpd.
> >> virtual processors / physical processors = 2.
> >>
> >> The clocks drifted -1 sec (4u5) and +1.5 sec (4u4) in 300 minutes
> >> for -.005% and .008%.
> >>
> >> I'm running a 3.1 based hypervisor with some clock related
> tweaks that
> >> I haven't submitted, because I'm still characterizing them.
> >>
> >> I'm stopping the usex load on 4u5-64 now and replacing it with ltp
> >> and will leave the two guests running ltp over the weekend.
> >>
> >> Regards,
> >> Dave
> >>
> >>
> >> Dave Winchell wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Dan, Deepak:
> >>>
> >>> Thanks for the data. Those drifts are severe - no wonder
> ntp couldn't
> >>> keep then in synch. I'll try to reproduce that behaviour
> here, with
> >>> my code base.
> >>> If I can't reproduce it, I'll try 3.2.
> >>>
> >>> If you can isolate what ltp is doing during the cliffs, that would
> >>> be very
> >>> helpful.
> >>>
> >>> thanks,
> >>> Dave
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> OK, Deepak repeated the test without ntpd and using
> ntpdate -b before
> >>>> the test.
> >>>>
> >>>> The attached graph shows his results: el5u1-64 (best=~0.07%),
> >>>> el4u5-64 (middle=~0.2%), and el4u5-32 (worst=~0.3%).
> >>>>
> >>>> We will continue to look at LTP to try to isolate.
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Dan
> >>>>
> >>>> P.S. elXuY is essentially RHEL XuY with some patches.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 2:45 PM
> >>>>> To: Deepak Patel
> >>>>> Cc: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser;
> >>>>> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; akira.ijuin@xxxxxxxxxx;
> Dave Winchell
> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode that disables
> >>>>> pending
> >>>>> missed ticks
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Dan, Deeepak,
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It may be that the underlying clock error is too great for ntp
> >>>>> to handle. It would be useful if you did not run ntpd
> >>>>> and, instead did ntpdate -b <timeserver> at the start
> of the test
> >>>>> for each guest. Then capture the data as you have been doing.
> >>>>> If the drift is greater than .05%, then we need to address that.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Another option is, when running ntpd, to enable loop
> statistics in
> >>>>> /etc/ntp.conf
> >>>>> by adding this to the file:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> statistics loopstats
> >>>>> statsdir /var/lib/ntp/
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Then you will see loop data in that directory.
> >>>>> Correlating the data in the loopstats files with the
> >>>>> peaks in skew would be interesting. You will see
> entries of the form
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 54495 76787.701 -0.045153303 -132.569229 0.020806776
> 239.735511 10
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Where the second to last column is the Allan Deviation.
> When that
> >>>>> gets over 1000, ntpd is working pretty hard. However, I have not
> >>>>> seen ntpd
> >>>>> completely loose it like you have.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I'm on vacation until Monday, and won't be reading
> >>>>> email.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks for all your work on this!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Dave
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Deepak Patel wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> Is the graph for RHEL5u1-64? (I've never tested this one.)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I do not know which graph was attached with this. But
> I saw this
> >>>>>> behavior in EL4u5 - 32, EL4U5 - 64 and EL5U1 - 64 hvm
> guests when I
> >>>>>> was running ltp tests continuously.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What was the behaviour of the other guests running?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> All pvm guests are fine. But behavior of most of the
> hvm guests were
> >>>>>> as described.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If they had spikes, were they at the same wall time?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. They are not at the same wall time.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Were the other guests running ltp as well?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes all 6 guests (4 hvm and 2 pvm) the guests are running ltp
> >>>>>> continuously.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How are you measuring skew?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I was collecting output of "ntpdate -q <timeserver> every
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 300 seconds
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> (5 minutes) and have created graph based on that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Are you running ntpd?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. ntp was running on all the guests.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I am investigating what causes this spikes and let everyone
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> know what
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> are my findings.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>> Deepak
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Anything that you can discover that would be in sync with
> >>>>>>> the spikes would be very helpful!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The code that I test with is our product code, which is based
> >>>>>>> on 3.1. So it is possible that something in 3.2 other
> than vpt.c
> >>>>>>> is the cause. I can test with 3.2, if necessary.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> thanks,
> >>>>>>> Dave
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Hi Dave (Keir, see suggestion below) --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks!
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Turning off vhpet certainly helps a lot (though see below).
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I wonder if timekeeping with vhpet is so bad that it
> should be
> >>>>>>>> turned off by default (in 3.1, 3.2, and unstable) until it is
> >>>>>>>> fixed? (I have a patch that defaults it off, can post it if
> >>>>>>>> there is agreement on the above point.) The whole
> point of an
> >>>>>>>> HPET is to provide more precise timekeeping and if vhpet is
> >>>>>>>> worse than vpit, it can only confuse users. Comments?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> In your testing, are you just measuring % skew over a long
> >>>>>>>> period of time?
> >>>>>>>> We are graphing the skew continuously and
> >>>>>>>> seeing periodic behavior that is unsettling, even with pit.
> >>>>>>>> See attached. Though your algorithm recovers, the "cliffs"
> >>>>>>>> could still cause real user problems. I wonder if there is
> >>>>>>>> anything that can be done to make the "recovery" more
> >>>>>>>> responsive?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> We are looking into what part(s) of LTP is causing
> the cliffs.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>> From: Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 8:21 AM
> >>>>>>>>> To: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>> Cc: Keir Fraser; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>>>>>>> deepak.patel@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>>>>>>> akira.ijuin@xxxxxxxxxx; Dave Winchell
> >>>>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode
> that disables
> >>>>>>>>> pending
> >>>>>>>>> missed ticks
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I guess I'm a bit out of date calling for clock= usage.
> >>>>>>>>> Looking at linux 2.6.20.4 sources, I think you
> should specify
> >>>>>>>>> "clocksource=pit nohpet" on the linux guest bootline.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> You can leave the xen and dom0 bootlines as they are.
> >>>>>>>>> The xen and guest clocksources do not need to be the same.
> >>>>>>>>> In my tests, xen is using the hpet for its timekeeping and
> >>>>>>>>> that appears to be the default.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> When you boot the guests you should see
> >>>>>>>>> time.c: Using PIT/TSC based timekeeping.
> >>>>>>>>> on the rh4u5-64 guest, and something similar on the others.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (xm dmesg shows 8x Xeon 3.2GHz stepping 04, Platform timer
> >>>>>>>>>> 14.318MHz HPET.)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> This appears to be the xen state, which is fine.
> >>>>>>>>> I was wrongly assuming that this was the guest state.
> >>>>>>>>> You might want to look in your guest logs and see
> what they were
> >>>>>>>>> picking
> >>>>>>>>> for a clock source.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>> Dave
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks, I hadn't realized that! No wonder we didn't
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> see the same
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> improvement you saw!
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Try specifying clock=pit on the linux boot line...
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I'm confused... do you mean "clocksource=pit" on the Xen
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> command line or
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> "nohpet" / "clock=pit" / "clocksource=pit" on the guest (or
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> dom0?) command
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> line? Or both places? Since the tests take awhile, it
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> would be nice
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to get this right the first time. Do the Xen and guest
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> clocksources need
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to be the same?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> *From:* Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, January 27, 2008 2:22 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> *To:* dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx; Keir Fraser
> >>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> deepak.patel@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>>>>>>>> akira.ijuin@xxxxxxxxxx; Dave Winchell
> >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> that disables
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> pending missed ticks
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Dan,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Hpet timer does have a fairly large error, as I
> >>>>>>>>>> was
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> trying this
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> one recently.
> >>>>>>>>>> I don't remember what I got for error, but 1% sounds
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> about right.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> The problem is that hpet is not built on top of vpt.c,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> the module
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Keir and I did
> >>>>>>>>>> all the recent work in, for its periodic timer needs. Try
> >>>>>>>>>> specifying clock=pit
> >>>>>>>>>> on the linux boot line. If it still picks the
> hpet, which it
> >>>>>>>>>> might, let me know
> >>>>>>>>>> and I'll tell you how to get around this.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> Dave
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>> ----------
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> *From:* Dan Magenheimer
> [mailto:dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Fri 1/25/2008 6:50 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> *To:* Dave Winchell; Keir Fraser
> >>>>>>>>>> *Cc:* xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx;
> deepak.patel@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>>>>>>>> akira.ijuin@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> *Subject:* RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> that disables
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> pending missed ticks
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Sorry for the very late followup on this but we finally
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> were able
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> to get our testing set up again on stable 3.1
> bits and have
> >>>>>>>>>> seen some very bad results on 3.1.3-rc1, on the
> order of 1%.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Test enviroment was a 4-socket dual core machine
> with 24GB of
> >>>>>>>>>> memory running six two-vcpu 2GB domains, four hvm
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> plus two pv.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All six guests were running LTP simultaneously.
> The four hvm
> >>>>>>>>>> guests were: RHEL5u1-64, RHEL4u5-32, RHEL5-64, and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> RHEL4u5-64.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Timer_mode was set to 2 for 64-bit guests and 0 for
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> 32-bit guests.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> All four hvm guests experienced skew around -1%,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> even the 32-bit
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> guest. Less intensive testing didn't exhibit much
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> skew at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> A representative graph is attached.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Dave, I wonder if some portion of your patches
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> didn't end up in
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> the xen trees?
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> (xm dmesg shows 8x Xeon 3.2GHz stepping 04,
> Platform timer
> >>>>>>>>>> 14.318MHz HPET.)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> Dan
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> P.S. Many thanks to Deepak and Akira for running tests.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> > From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>>>>> > Dave Winchell
> >>>>>>>>>> > Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2008 9:53 AM
> >>>>>>>>>> > To: Keir Fraser
> >>>>>>>>>> > Cc: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx;
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dave
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > Winchell
> >>>>>>>>>> > Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer mode that
> >>>>>>>>>> > disables pending
> >>>>>>>>>> > missed ticks
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > Hi Keir,
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > The latest change, c/s 16690, looks fine.
> >>>>>>>>>> > I agree that the code in c/s 16690 is equivalent to
> >>>>>>>>>> > the code I submitted. Also, your version is more
> >>>>>>>>>> > concise.
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > The error tests confirm the equivalence. With
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> overnight cpu loads,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > the checked in version was accurate to +.048% for sles
> >>>>>>>>>> > and +.038% for red hat. My version was +.046%
> >>>>>>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> +.032% in a
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > 2 hour test.
> >>>>>>>>>> > I don't think the difference is significant.
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > i/o loads produced errors of +.01%.
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > Thanks for all your efforts on this issue.
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> > Dave
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > Keir Fraser wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >Applied as c/s 16690, although the checked-in patch is
> >>>>>>>>>> > smaller. I think the
> >>>>>>>>>> > >only important fix is to pt_intr_post() and the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> only bit of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > the patch I
> >>>>>>>>>> > >totally omitted was the change to
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> pt_process_missed_ticks().
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > I don't think
> >>>>>>>>>> > >that change can be important, but let's see what
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> happens to the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> error
> >>>>>>>>>> > >percentage...
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > > -- Keir
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >On 4/1/08 23:24, "Dave Winchell"
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> <dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>Hi Dan and Keir,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>Attached is a patch that fixes some issues with the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> SYNC policy
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>(no_missed_ticks_pending).
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>I have not tried to make the change the
> minimal one, but,
> >>>>>>>>>> > rather, just
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>ported into
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>the new code what I know to work well. The error for
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>no_missed_ticks_pending goes from
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>over 3% to .03% with this change according
> to my testing.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>Dave
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>Hi Dave --
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>Did you get your correction ported? If so,
> it would be
> >>>>>>>>>> > nice to see this get
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>into 3.1.3.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>Note that I just did some very limited testing with
> >>>>>>>>>> > timer_mode=2(=SYNC=no
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>missed ticks pending)
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>on tip of xen-3.1-testing (64-bit Linux hv
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> guest) and the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > worst error I've
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>seen so far
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>is 0.012%. But I haven't tried any exotic
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> loads, just LTP.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>Dan
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>From: Dave Winchell
> [mailto:dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 12:33 PM
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>To: dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Cc: Keir Fraser; Shan, Haitao;
> >>>>>>>>>> > xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dong,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Eddie; Jiang, Yunhong; Dave Winchell
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a
> timer mode that
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>disables pending
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>missed ticks
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Dan,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>I did some testing with the constant tsc offset
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> SYNC method
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>(now called
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>no_missed_ticks_pending)
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>and found the error to be very high, much larger
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> than 1 %, as
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>I recall.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>I have not had a chance to submit a correction. I
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> will try to
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>do it later
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>this week or the first week in January. My
> version of
> >>>>>>>>>> constant tsc
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>offset SYNC method
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>produces .02 % error, so I just need to port
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> that into the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>current code.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>The error you got for both of those kernels is
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> what I would
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> expect
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>for the default mode, delay_for_missed_ticks.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>I'll let Keir answer on how to set the time mode.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Dave
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>Anyone make measurements on the final patch?
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>I just ran a 64-bit RHEL5.1 pvm kernel and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> saw a loss of
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>about 0.2% with no load. This was
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> xen-unstable tip today
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>with no options specified. 32-bit was about 0.01%.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>I think I missed something... how do I
> run the various
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>accounting choices and which ones are known to be
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> appropriate
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>for which kernels?
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>Thanks,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>Dan
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>-----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>From: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>Keir Fraser
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 4:57 AM
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>To: Dave Winchell
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Cc: Shan, Haitao;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Dong,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > Eddie; Jiang,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Yunhong
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] Add a timer
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> mode that
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>disables pending
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>missed ticks
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Please take a look at xen-unstable
> changeset 16545.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>-- Keir
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>On 26/11/07 20:57, "Dave Winchell"
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>><dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Keir,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The accuracy data I've collected for i/o
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> loads for the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>various time protocols follows. In
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> addition, the data
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>for cpu loads is shown.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The loads labeled cpu and i/o-8 are on an 8
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> processor AMD
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> box.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Two guests, red hat and sles 64 bit, 8
> vcpu each.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The cpu load is usex -e36 on each guest.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>(usex is available at
> >>>>>>>>>> http://people.redhat.com/anderson/usex.)
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>i/o load is 8 instances of dd if=/dev/hda6
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> of=/dev/null.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The loads labeled i/o-32 are 32 instances of dd.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Also, these are run on 4 cpu AMD box.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>In addition, there is an idle rh-32bit guest.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>All three guests are 8vcpu.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The loads labeled i/o-4/32 are the same
> as i/o-32
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>except that the redhat-64 guest has 4
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> instances of dd.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Date Duration Protocol sles, rhat error load
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/07 23 hrs 40 min ASYNC -4.96 sec,
> >>>>>>>>>> +4.42
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> sec -.006%,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > +.005% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/09 3 hrs 19 min ASYNC -.13 sec, +1.44
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> sec, -.001%,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > +.012% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/08 2 hrs 21 min SYNC -.80 sec, -.34
> sec, -.009%,
> >>>>>>>>>> -.004% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/08 1 hr 25 min SYNC -.24 sec, -.26 sec,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -.005%, -.005% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/12 65 hrs 40 min SYNC -18 sec, -8 sec,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -.008%, -.003% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/08 28 min MIXED -.75 sec, -.67 sec -.045%,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -.040% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/08 15 hrs 39 min MIXED -19. sec,-17.4
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> sec, -.034%,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.031% cpu
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/14 17 hrs 17 min ASYNC -6.1
> sec,-55.7 sec, -.01%,
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.09% i/o-8
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/15 2 hrs 44 min ASYNC -1.47
> sec,-14.0 sec, -.015%
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.14% i/o-8
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/13 15 hrs 38 min SYNC -9.7 sec,-12.3
> sec, -.017%,
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.022% i/o-8
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/14 48 min SYNC - .46 sec, - .48 sec,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -.017%, -.018% i/o-8
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/14 4 hrs 2 min MIXED -2.9 sec, -4.15
> sec, -.020%,
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.029% i/o-8
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/20 16 hrs 2 min MIXED -13.4 sec,-18.1
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> sec, -.023%,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.031% i/o-8
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/21 28 min MIXED -2.01 sec, -.67 sec, -.12%,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -.04% i/o-32
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/21 2 hrs 25 min SYNC -.96 sec, -.43
> sec, -.011%,
> >>>>>>>>>> > -.005% i/o-32
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/21 40 min ASYNC -2.43 sec, -2.77 sec -.10%,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> -.11% i/o-32
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/26 113 hrs 46 min MIXED -297. sec,
> 13. sec -.07%,
> >>>>>>>>>> > .003% i/o-4/32
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>11/26 4 hrs 50 min SYNC -3.21 sec, 1.44
> sec, -.017%,
> >>>>>>>>>> > .01% i/o-4/32
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Overhead measurements:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Progress in terms of number of passes
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> through a fixed
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>system workload
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>on an 8 vcpu red hat with an 8 vcpu sles idle.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The workload was usex -b48.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>ASYNC 167 min 145 passes .868 passes/min
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>SYNC 167 min 144 passes .862 passes/min
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>SYNC 1065 min 919 passes .863 passes/min
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>MIXED 221 min 196 passes .887 passes/min
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Conclusions:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>The only protocol which meets the .05% accuracy
> >>>>>>>>>> > requirement for ntp
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>tracking under the loads
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>above is the SYNC protocol. The worst case
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> accuracies for
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>SYNC, MIXED,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>and ASYNC
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>are .022%, .12%, and .14%, respectively.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>We could reduce the cost of the SYNC
> method by only
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>scheduling the extra
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>wakeups if a certain number
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>of ticks are missed.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Regards,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Dave
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>Keir Fraser wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>On 9/11/07 19:22, "Dave Winchell"
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>><dwinchell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>Since I had a high error (~.03%) for the
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> ASYNC method a
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>couple of days ago,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I ran another ASYNC test. I think
> there may have
> >>>>>>>>>> > been something
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>wrong with the code I used a couple of
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> days ago for
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>ASYNC. It may have been
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>missing the immediate delivery of interrupt
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> after context
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>switch in.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>My results indicate that either SYNC
> or ASYNC give
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>acceptable accuracy,
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>each running consistently around or under
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> .01%. MIXED has
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>a fairly high
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>error of
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>greater than .03%. Probably too close
> to .05% ntp
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>threshold for comfort.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>I don't have an overnight run with SYNC. I
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> plan to leave
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>SYNC running
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>over the weekend. If you'd rather I can
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> leave MIXED
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>running instead.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>It may be too early to pick the protocol and
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I can run
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>more overnight tests
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>next week.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>I'm a bit worried about any unwanted side
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> effects of the
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>SYNC+run_timer
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>approach -- e.g., whether timer wakeups will
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> cause higher
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>system-wide CPU
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>contention. I find it easier to think
> through the
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>implications of ASYNC. I'm
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>surprised that MIXED loses time, and is less
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> accurate than
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>ASYNC. Perhaps it
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>delivers more timer interrupts than the other
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> approaches,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>and each interrupt
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>event causes a small accumulated error?
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Overall I would consider MIXED and ASYNC as
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> favourites and
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>if the latter is
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>actually more accurate then I can
> simply revert the
> >>>>>>>>>> > changeset that
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>implemented MIXED.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>Perhaps rather than running more of the same
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> workloads you
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>could try idle
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>VCPUs and I/O bound VCPUs (e.g., repeated
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> large disc reads
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>to /dev/null)? We
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>don't have any data on workloads that aren't
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> CPU bound, so
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>that's really an
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>obvious place to put any further effort imo.
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>-- Keir
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>_______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Xen-devel mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>diff -r cfdbdca5b831 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>--- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c Thu Dec 06 15:36:07
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> 2007 +0000
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c Fri Jan 04 17:58:16
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> 2008 -0500
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>@@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static void
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> pt_process_missed_ticks(stru
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> missed_ticks = missed_ticks / (s_time_t)
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> pt->period + 1;
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> if ( mode_is(pt->vcpu->domain,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> no_missed_ticks_pending) )
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>- pt->do_not_freeze = !pt->pending_intr_nr;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ pt->do_not_freeze = 1;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> else
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt->pending_intr_nr += missed_ticks;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt->scheduled += missed_ticks * pt->period;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>@@ -127,7 +127,12 @@ static void
> pt_timer_fn(void *data)
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt_lock(pt);
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>- pt->pending_intr_nr++;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ if ( mode_is(pt->vcpu->domain,
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> no_missed_ticks_pending) ) {
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ pt->pending_intr_nr = 1;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ pt->do_not_freeze = 0;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ }
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ else
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ pt->pending_intr_nr++;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> if ( !pt->one_shot )
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> {
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>@@ -221,8 +226,6 @@ void pt_intr_post(struct
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> vcpu *v, struct
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> return;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> }
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>- pt->do_not_freeze = 0;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>-
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> if ( pt->one_shot )
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> {
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt->enabled = 0;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>@@ -235,6 +238,10 @@ void pt_intr_post(struct vcpu
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> *v, struct
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt->last_plt_gtime =
> hvm_get_guest_time(v);
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt->pending_intr_nr = 0; /*
> 'collapse' all
> >>>>>>>>>> > missed ticks */
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> }
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ else if ( mode_is(v->domain,
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>> no_missed_ticks_pending) ) {
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ pt->pending_intr_nr--;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ pt->last_plt_gtime = hvm_get_guest_time(v);
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>+ }
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> else
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> {
> >>>>>>>>>> > >> pt->last_plt_gtime += pt->period_cycles;
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >>
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> > >
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>>>>>>>> > Xen-devel mailing list
> >>>>>>>>>> > Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>>>>>>>>> > http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> >>>>>>>>>> >
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------
> >
>
>
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Home