[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH] xen: always handle VIRQ_TIMER first.
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
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |