Re: [PATCH] Implement timekeeping for rumprun/hw (x86)
- From: Martin Lucina <martin@xxxxxxxxxx>
- To: rumpkernel-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 6 Jul 2015 12:50:36 +0200
On Monday, 06.07.2015 at 10:35, Antti Kantee wrote:
While that may be a fix, how can that even in theory be a fix for
the guest clock running at 2/5 speed compared to the real world??
The problem I was trying to fix was sleeps being
way too long on x86-64 (as reported by the test program).
Testing confirms that the problem is still there. I also tested
32bit qemu, and I see the problem there too.
Regarding the wall clock, I see no problems on my system (2011 vintage
Sandy Bridge with invarant TSC). In fact, I've had a "php -S" unikernel
running for some time now and the wall clock is exactly the same to the
You did mention that you're testing on a Core 2 laptop, right? What does
cat /proc/cpuinfo say on your system?
Also, as an experiment, can you try and boot either variant of
clock_test.bin directly from GRUB, while running the system on AC?
Also, qemu now
consumes ~7% host CPU for a program which does "sleep(1000);". That
is way way too high for everything to be peachy.
Not really. Don't forget that rumpclk is trying to run at 100 Hz, so at the
moment you'll never run into really long sleeps anyway.
Other related posts: