lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Oct]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [patch 00/11] x86/vdso: Cleanups, simmplifications and CLOCK_TAI support
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 04:00:29PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:28 PM Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:09:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:28 AM Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 10:38:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:27 AM Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > I read the comment three more times and even dug through the git
> > > > > history. It seems like what you're saying is that, under certain
> > > > > conditions (which arguably would be bugs in the core Linux timing
> > > > > code),
> > > >
> > > > I don't see that as a bug. Its just a side effect of reading two
> > > > different clocks (one is CLOCK_MONOTONIC and the other is TSC),
> > > > and using those two clocks to as a "base + offset".
> > > >
> > > > As the comment explains, if you do that, can't guarantee monotonicity.
> > > >
> > > > > actually calling ktime_get_boot_ns() could be non-monotonic
> > > > > with respect to the kvmclock timing. But get_kvmclock_ns() isn't used
> > > > > for VM timing as such -- it's used for the IOCTL interfaces for
> > > > > updating the time offset. So can you explain how my patch is
> > > > > incorrect?
> > > >
> > > > ktime_get_boot_ns() has frequency correction applied, while
> > > > reading masterclock + TSC offset does not.
> > > >
> > > > So the clock reads differ.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Ah, okay, I finally think I see what's going on. In the kvmclock data
> > > exposed to the guest, tsc_shift and tsc_to_system_mul come from
> > > tgt_tsc_khz, whereas master_kernel_ns and master_cycle_now come from
> > > CLOCK_BOOTTIME. So the kvmclock and kernel clock drift apart at a
> > > rate given by the frequency shift and then suddenly agree again every
> > > time the pvclock data is updated.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > Is there a reason to do it this way?
> >
> > Since pvclock updates which update system_timestamp are expensive (must stop all vcpus),
> > they should be avoided.
> >
>
> Fair enough.
>
> > So only HW TSC counts
>
> makes sense.
>
> >, and used as offset against vcpu's tsc_timestamp.
> >
>
> Why don't you just expose CLOCK_MONTONIC_RAW or CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW
> plus suspend time, though? Then you would actually be tracking a real
> kernel timekeeping mode, and you wouldn't need all this complicated
> offsetting work to avoid accidentally going backwards.

Can you outline how that would work ?

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-10-15 16:43    [W:0.127 / U:7.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site