RE: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation

[Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Then they will get incorrect timing once they are live migrated.

I've posted a proposed (OS-independent) solution for that and
am (slowly) in the process of implementing it.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avi Kivity [mailto:avi@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 07, 2009 3:08 PM
> To: Dan Magenheimer
> Cc: Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Jeremy Fitzhardinge; Xen-devel; Kurt Hackel;
> the arch/x86 maintainers; Linux Kernel Mailing List; Glauber 
> de Oliveira
> Costa; Keir Fraser; Zach Brown; Chris Mason
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall
> implementation
> 
> 
> On 10/07/2009 10:48 PM, Dan Magenheimer wrote:
> >> We can support them by falling back to the kernel.  I'm a 
> bit worried
> >> about the kernel playing with the hypervisor's version field.  It's
> >> better to introduce yet a new version for the kernel, and 
> check both.
> >>      
> > On Nehalem, apps that need timestamp information at a high
> > frequency will likely use rdtsc/rdtscp directly.
> >
> >    
> 
> Then they will get incorrect timing once they are live migrated.
> 
> -- 
> I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
> signature is too narrow to contain.
> 
> 
>

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