qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [Bug 599958] Re: Timedrift problems with Win7: hpet


From: Jan Kiszka
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [Bug 599958] Re: Timedrift problems with Win7: hpet missing time drift fixups
Date: Mon, 05 Jul 2010 11:07:56 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686 (x86_64); de; rv:1.8.1.12) Gecko/20080226 SUSE/2.0.0.12-1.1 Thunderbird/2.0.0.12 Mnenhy/0.7.5.666

Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 07/05/2010 10:36 AM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>
>>> Assumes that CPU with
>>> lowest index is BSP (that one we can actually guaranty if we want
>>> to).
>>>      
>> Well, the generic solution would be returning a bitmap of the CPUs that
>> were affected, but this is impractical. However, at least x86 should be
>> fine with the information "state change also on BSP", e.g. like this:
>>   0 - state change on one or more CPUs, none of them is the BSP
>>   1 - state change on BSP (and possible more CPUs)
>>    
> 
> What about ack notifiers?  Ask the APIC to notify you when an interrupt
> is acked.  That allows you to track the BSP, all cpus, or some subset. 
> Masking can be seen at the irq controller level.

So, if I understand you correctly, an IRQ state change that is ignored
due to masking would invoke the ack notifier chain as well?

> 
> It's more involved, but provides more information.

Well, it requires to establish ack notifier chains in parallel to the
existing IRQ delivery routes. Definitely more invasive.

Jan

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]