[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: always handle VIRQ_TIMER first.

To:	Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@xxxxxxxx>
Subject:	[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: always handle VIRQ_TIMER first.
From:	Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>
Date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:14:07 +0100
Cc:	xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Ian Campbell <ian.campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date:	Sat, 16 Oct 2010 00:15:05 -0700
Dkim-signature:	v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:sender:user-agent:date :subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic:thread-index:in-reply-to :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=P2/ataGlsKcehPAWbPy6dGswVoUEJKxdE3x10XYJ3EY=; b=qTIvdMoOPcWNgHz+JF8eqk8KejfqldkC1b1YECeMXoCeON+93kr9tKvEJgH3dD54nl HwmfKWlJ1DtE+QOWCKhIGOiKxmje87Rjm7pkrOmTCMAdSYit6DVTXWJhDJRMQD3siTUZ ZAz27vAR4IuAB1wjKGm/PriTukwte97fZ3TYc=
Domainkey-signature:	a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=sender:user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=ZoLdjnIs/2EyDZ7AnpINg6KRIeW53T8b40eXRt4cDwdJ11bw6CiFRHhyiXPqrCdOHf vS7EE7GjTZbzlgMSLwY2fi1SIoq475S2vMuJ7LDbbtUN2d/t+FqwmK7T++4OknD57H9a ao1JUeFw9A7thplIhCqhuXYiGcSHcr3ADtYZY=
Envelope-to:	www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to:	<4CB8C393.4080809@xxxxxxxx>
List-help:	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id:	Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post:	<mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe:	<http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
Sender:	xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Thread-index:	ActtAbieLw+YSUcDqUKbC8vJkbGfyw==
Thread-topic:	[PATCH] xen: always handle VIRQ_TIMER first.
User-agent:	Microsoft-Entourage/12.26.0.100708

On 15/10/2010 22:11, "Jeremy Fitzhardinge" <jeremy@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> When guest resumes execution after a long period blocked, the unblocking
>> interrupt may be handled before the inevitable timer interrupt which
> 
> Why "inevitable"?  What if the next timer event is still some time in
> the future?  Or are you assuming the timer is driven by the default Xen
> 100Hz timer?

Do you sometimes disable, or indeed never use, VCPUOP_set_periodic_timer?

Hmmm... Perhaps as you suggest this would be a generic issue with any
tickless kernel, and the correct upstream fix for issues such as USB kbd
repeat -- if indeed such issues still exist -- is to fix such hardirq
handlers to not depend on jiffies.

We fixed it the way we did in 'classic Xen' patched kernels since it seemed
arhitecturally neatest. I can accept that in the tickless kernel world that
may not actually be true.

 -- Keir

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

WARNING - OLD ARCHIVES

xen-devel

[Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: always handle VIRQ_TIMER first.