Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] x86: unconditionally mark TSC unstable under Xen

[Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 18:05, Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 07/15/2010 10:48 AM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
>> Maybe the xen_sched_clock code should be entirely removed
>> rather than ifdef'd since it is no longer used and
>> "(somewhat, in theory)" led to a strange bug?  Or if
>> you are confident that it will be useful in the future
>> by some linux scheduler, maybe add some comments about
>> how enabling it may cause the effects Jed saw.
>
> Yes, I can probably remove it altogether, though it isn't actually
> selectable without manually editing the Kconfig file.
>
>> And maybe an even better answer is to submit a patch upstream
>> so that the scheduler doesn't use the same timebase for
>> measuring both, since the kernel is making a bad assumption
>> about real vs virtual time. I'd imagine KVM users might benefit
>> from that also.
>
> Its unclear how useful it is anyway.  I've discussed it with Peter
> Zijlstra from time to time, but making the scheduler use two timebases
> is non-trivial I think.  Or perhaps more accurate to say that I don't
> want to be getting into the scheduler, since it is not only a
> technical minefield.

Hi all, I was wondering what the status on this issue was. Maybe I've
missed something, but I've looked through the lkml and xen archives and
I haven't found a re-rolled patch that addresses this issue.

I'm not very familiar with this area (well, any area) of the kernel,
but if there's something needed to push this forward I'd be happy to
help with that, or if this is already being addressed somewhere else a
pointer to where that is would be welcome.

Thanks.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel