|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] xen/time: fix system_time for vtsc=1 PV guests
On Fri, 22 Apr 2016, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 21.04.16 at 15:29, <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > --- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> > +++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
> > @@ -784,7 +784,7 @@ static void __update_vcpu_system_time(struct vcpu *v,
> > int force)
> > struct cpu_time *t;
> > struct vcpu_time_info *u, _u = {};
> > struct domain *d = v->domain;
> > - s_time_t tsc_stamp;
> > + s_time_t stime_stamp, tsc_stamp = 0;
>
> I don't see why the initializer needs adding here.
Ops, sorry, I developed the patch against 4.6, the useless
initialization derives from it.
> > @@ -807,7 +808,11 @@ static void __update_vcpu_system_time(struct vcpu *v,
> > int force)
> > tsc_stamp = -gtime_to_gtsc(d, -stime);
> > }
> > else
> > + {
> > tsc_stamp = gtime_to_gtsc(d, stime);
> > + if (!tsc_stamp)
>
> Coding style.
>
> > + stime_stamp = d->arch.vtsc_offset;
> > + }
>
> While I can see this being the right thing for getting the two stamps
> in sync, is that really helping the guest? Time ought to be not moving
> forward until getting past vtsc_offset afaict, and that can't be good.
It helps a lot in my test case: without this Linux hangs due to lost
timer interrupts (because they are set in the past).
> I.e. it would seem to me that it's gtime_to_gtsc() that needs
> adjustment to properly deal with time < d->arch.vtsc_offset.
I agree that it would be nice to fix gtime_to_gtsc, but how do you
suggest to do it?
> Plus I can't see why, in the worst case, the gTSC value can't be
> wrapped through zero into negative (or really huge positive) range:
> Such TSC values are certainly not invalid, and guests shouldn't really
> make assumptions on TSC values being in the small positive range
> when they boot.
Am I understanding correctly that you are suggesting to let the
subtraction in gtime_to_gtsc return a negative -- actually a wrapped
around positive? Something like:
diff --git a/xen/arch/x86/time.c b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
index 7a01c90..896fd9f 100644
--- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
@@ -1757,8 +1757,8 @@ custom_param("tsc", tsc_parse);
u64 gtime_to_gtsc(struct domain *d, u64 time)
{
if ( !is_hvm_domain(d) )
- time = max_t(s64, time - d->arch.vtsc_offset, 0);
- return scale_delta(time, &d->arch.ns_to_vtsc);
+ time = time - d->arch.vtsc_offset;
+ return scale_delta(time2, &d->arch.ns_to_vtsc);
}
Unfortunately that wouldn't solve the problem because of the scaling.
> Also, looking at all the involved code, I once again wonder whether
> all the is_hvm_*() there shouldn't be has_hvm_container_*().
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |