Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Zachary Amsden <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 20:10 -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>>
>>> From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> tsc is very good time source (when it does not have drifts, does not
>>> change it's frequency, i.e. when it works), so it should have its rating
>>> raised to a value greater than, or equal 400.
>>>
>>> Since it's being a tendency among paravirt clocksources to use values
>>> around 400, we should declare tsc as even better: So we use 500.
>>>
>> Why is the TSC better than a paravirt clocksource? In our case this
>> is definitely inaccurate. Paravirt clocksources should be preferred
>> to TSC, and both must be made available in hardware for platforms
>> which do not support paravirt.
>>
>
> if it's inaccurate why are you exposing it to the guest then? Native
> only uses the TSC if it's safe and accurate to do so.
>
It is used as part of the Xen clocksource as a short term extrapolator,
with correction parameters supplied by the hypervisor. It should never
be used directly.
J
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
