[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation
On 10/06/2009 08:46 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: Instead of using vgetcpu() and rdtsc() independently, you can use rdtscp to read both atomically. This removes the need for the preempt notifier.rdtscp first appeared on Intel with Nehalem, so we need to support older Intel chips. We can support them by falling back to the kernel. I'm a bit worried about the kernel playing with the hypervisor's version field. It's better to introduce yet a new version for the kernel, and check both. You could use rdscp to get (tsc,cpu) atomically, but that's not sufficient to be able to get a consistent snapshot of (tsc, time_info) because it doesn't give you the pvclock_vcpu_time_info version number. If TSC_AUX contained that too, it might be possible. Alternatively you could compare the tsc with pvclock.tsc_timestamp, but unfortunately the ABI doesn't specify that tsc_timestamp is updated in any particular order compared to the rest of the fields, so you still can't use that to get a consistent snapshot (we can revise the ABI, of course). So either way it doesn't avoid the need to iterate. vgetcpu will use rdtscp if available, but I agree it is unfortunate we need to do a redundant rdtsc in that case. def try_pvclock_vtime(): tsc, p0 = rdtscp() v0 = pvclock[p0].version tsc, p = rdtscp() t = pvclock_time(pvclock[p], tsc) if p != p0 or pvclock[p].version != v0: raise Exception("Processor or timebased change under our feet") return t def pvclock_time(): while True: try: return try_pvlock_time() except: pass So, two rdtscps and two compares. + for (cpu = 0; cpu< nr_cpu_ids; cpu++) + pvclock_vsyscall_time_info[cpu].version = ~0; + + __set_fixmap(FIX_PVCLOCK_TIME_INFO, __pa(pvclock_vsyscall_time_info), + PAGE_KERNEL_VSYSCALL); + + preempt_notifier_init(&pvclock_vsyscall_notifier, +&pvclock_vsyscall_preempt_ops); + preempt_notifier_register(&pvclock_vsyscall_notifier); +preempt notifiers are per-thread, not global, and will upset the cycle counters.Ah, so I need to register it on every new thread? That's a bit awkward. It's used to manage processor registers, much like the fpu. If a thread uses a register that's not saved and restored by the normal context switch code, it can register a preempt notifier to do that instead. This is intended to satisfy the cycle-counters who want to do gettimeofday a million times a second, where I guess the tradeoff of avoiding a pile of syscalls is worth a bit of context-switch overhead. It's sufficient to increment a version counter on thread migration, no need to do it on context switch. -- Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic. _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |