[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] x86 hvm: fix missing ticks bug of c/s 20218
Keir Fraser writes: > Moving the line 'pt->scheduled += pt->period' inside the if statement looks > pretty dubious. Does your fix still work if we don't move that line? For the > default timer mode I'm not sure it should make any difference either way, > but it would for timer mode 0. Oops, my brain was dead. You are right. New one is attached. Of course it works. Thanks, Kouya > > -- Keir > > On 18/09/2009 06:24, "Kouya Shimura" <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > With c/s 20218, timer ticks might be missed when IRQs of a timer are queued. > > Next scheduled time is accumulated wrongly. > > > > Thanks to Christoph for the report. > > > > Thanks, > > Kouya > > > > Signed-off-by: Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reported-by: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> > > > Signed-off-by: Kouya Shimura <kouya@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Reported-by: Christoph Egger <Christoph.Egger@xxxxxxx> diff -r 72d130772f36 xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c --- a/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c Wed Sep 16 09:30:41 2009 +0100 +++ b/xen/arch/x86/hvm/vpt.c Fri Sep 18 17:13:25 2009 +0900 @@ -309,7 +309,6 @@ void pt_intr_post(struct vcpu *v, struct else { pt->scheduled += pt->period; - pt_process_missed_ticks(pt); if ( mode_is(v->domain, one_missed_tick_pending) || mode_is(v->domain, no_missed_ticks_pending) ) @@ -324,7 +323,11 @@ void pt_intr_post(struct vcpu *v, struct } if ( pt->pending_intr_nr == 0 ) + { + pt_process_missed_ticks(pt); + pt->do_not_freeze = 0; set_timer(&pt->timer, pt->scheduled); + } } if ( mode_is(v->domain, delay_for_missed_ticks) && _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |