Re: [PATCH] raise tsc clocksource rating

[Jeremy Fitzhardinge]

Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Zachary Amsden <zach@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>   
>> On Mon, 2007-10-29 at 20:10 -0300, Glauber de Oliveira Costa wrote:
>>     
>>> From: Glauber de Oliveira Costa <glauber@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> 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 majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/