[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xen-devel] Re: [RFC, PATCH 17/24] i386 Vmi msr patch
Andi Kleen wrote:
And I don't think it's a good idea to virtualize the TSC without CPU support.We currently don't support configurations without a TSC. But we're not trying to virtualize the TSC without CPU support. It is possible. But I have no idea _why_ you would want to do such a thing.Don't change it then?
I misunderstood you. I thought when you said, "I don't think it's a good idea virtualize the TSC without CPU support" that meant on CPUs without a hardware TSC. If you really meant on CPUs without virtualization hardware, well, that is something we do, and it is not only possible, it is necessary for many non-paravirtualized operating systems. As I mention in the interface documentation, TSC and the performance counters in general are very problematic in a virtual machine - they can be visible to userspace, and they are hard to keep accurate. Long term, dropping kernel usage of the TSC is a good thing to do for VMs.
The primary motivation for the change here was to get rid of the call to the VMI ROM for TSC support. I am in the process of removing the ROM call sites so that they can instead be patched into the kernel directly. I am actually unsure if there are any uses of the TSC left on critical paths with the new VMI timer support, but I inlined the code here for consistency.
I agree that long term, it doesn't need to be done, and these instructions can all go back to trap and emulate. Perhaps they are even worth dropping from the list of VMI calls, since they really are problematic and/or not useful in a virtual machine. This again, is a good point for debate. We're open to suggestions, but keep in mind that the fact that other operating systems and hypervisors might find something useful in virtualizing them. Maybe not.
BTW I think it will be pretty tough to find enough competent reviewers for your patchkit. And is the spec still in flux or are you trying to implement an interfacefor an specification that is already put into stone?
Everything is still very much open to change, and nothing is cast in stone - this is about finding the best interface for Linux, and it is clear that it needs some iteration before that is found. Which is why we are looking for feedback, exactly like this.
Thanks, Zach _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our