Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen: add steal_clock support on x86

[David Vrabel <david.vrabel@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 18/05/16 16:51, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 18/05/16 17:45, David Vrabel wrote:
>> On 18/05/16 16:42, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>> On 18/05/16 17:25, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>> On 05/18/2016 10:53 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>> On 18/05/16 16:46, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/18/2016 08:15 AM, Juergen Gross wrote:
>>>>>>>  }
>>>>>>>  
>>>>>>> +void __init xen_time_setup_guest(void)
>>>>>>> +{
>>>>>>> +       pv_time_ops.steal_clock = xen_steal_clock;
>>>>>>> +
>>>>>>> +       static_key_slow_inc(&paravirt_steal_enabled);
>>>>>>> +       /*
>>>>>>> +        * We can't set paravirt_steal_rq_enabled as this would require 
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> +        * capability to read another cpu's runstate info.
>>>>>>> +        */
>>>>>>> +}
>>>>>> Won't we be accounting for stolen cycles twice now --- once from
>>>>>> steal_account_process_tick()->steal_clock() and second time from
>>>>>> do_stolen_accounting()?
>>>>> Uuh, yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> I guess I should rip do_stolen_accounting() out, too? 
>>>>
>>>> I don't think PARAVIRT_TIME_ACCOUNTING is always selected for Xen. If
>>>
>>> This is easy to accomplish. :-)
>>>
>>>> that's indeed the case then we should ifndef do_stolen_accounting(). Or
>>>> maybe check for paravirt_steal_enabled.
>>>
>>> Is this really a sensible thing to do? There is a mechanism used by KVM
>>> to do the stolen accounting. I think we should use it instead of having
>>> a second implementation doing the same thing in case the generic one
>>> isn't enabled.
>>
>> I agree.
>>
>> Although I don't think selecting PARAVIRT_TIME_ACC' is necessary -- I
>> don't think it's essential (or is it?).
> 
> Not doing so will change behavior in case I rip out
> do_stolen_accounting(). What about "default y if XEN" ?

Ok.

David

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel