lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Oct]   [16]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRE: [PATCH v5 3/6] timekeeping: Add clocksource to system_time_snapshot
Date
Hi tglx,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 16, 2019 3:29 PM
> To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Jianyong Wu (Arm Technology China) <Jianyong.Wu@arm.com>;
> netdev@vger.kernel.org; yangbo.lu@nxp.com; john.stultz@linaro.org;
> sean.j.christopherson@intel.com; maz@kernel.org;
> richardcochran@gmail.com; Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland@arm.com>;
> will@kernel.org; Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose@arm.com>; linux-
> kernel@vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org;
> kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu; kvm@vger.kernel.org; Steve Capper
> <Steve.Capper@arm.com>; Kaly Xin (Arm Technology China)
> <Kaly.Xin@arm.com>; Justin He (Arm Technology China)
> <Justin.He@arm.com>; nd <nd@arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] timekeeping: Add clocksource to
> system_time_snapshot
>
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > On 15/10/19 22:13, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > On Tue, 15 Oct 2019, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> On 15/10/19 12:48, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > >
> > > You're sure about having reviewed that in detail?
> >
> > I did review the patch; the void* ugliness is not in this one, and I
> > do have some other qualms on that one.
> >
> > > This changelog is telling absolutely nothing WHY anything outside of
> > > the timekeeping core code needs access to the current clocksource.
> > > Neither does it tell why it is safe to provide the pointer to random callers.
> >
> > Agreed on the changelog, but the pointer to a clocksource is already
> > part of the timekeeping external API via struct system_counterval_t.
> > get_device_system_crosststamp for example expects a clocksource
> > pointer but provides no way to get such a pointer.
>
> That's a completely different beast, really.
>
> The clocksource pointer is handed in by the caller and the core code validates
> if the clocksource is the same as the current system clocksource and not the
> other way round.
>
> So there is no need for getting that pointer from the core code because the
> caller knows already which clocksource needs to be active to make.the whole
> cross device timestamp correlation work. And in that case it's the callers
> responsibility to ensure that the pointer is valid which is the case for the
> current use cases.
>
I thinks there is something misunderstanding of my patch. See patch 4/6, the reason why I add clocksource is that I want to check if the current clocksouce is
arm_arch_counter in virt/kvm/arm/psci.c and nothing to do with get_device_system_crosststamp.

So I really need a mechanism to do that check.

Thanks
Jianyong

> From your other reply:
>
> > Why add a global id? ARM can add it to archdata similar to how x86
> > has vclock_mode. But I still think the right thing to do is to
> > include the full system_counterval_t in the result of
> > ktime_get_snapshot. (More in a second, feel free to reply to the other
> email only).
>
> No, the clocksource pointer is not going to be exposed as there is no
> guarantee that it will be still around after the call returns.
>
> It's not even guaranteed to be correct when the store happens in Wu's patch
> simply because the store is done outside of the seqcount protected region.

Yeah, all of the elements in system_time_snapshot should be captured in consistency. So
I think the consistency will be guaranteed if the store ops added in the seqcount region.

>
> Vs. arch data: arch data is an opaque struct, so you'd need to store a pointer
> which has the same issue as the clocksource pointer itself.
>
> If we want to convey information then it has to be in the generic part of
> struct clocksource.
>
> In fact we could even simplify the existing get_device_system_crosststamp()
> use case by using the ID field.
>
> Thanks,
>
> tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-10-16 11:49    [W:0.068 / U:6.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site