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

[Keir Fraser <keir@xxxxxxx>]

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