All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com>
To: "dan.magenheimer@oracle.com" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>,
	"Xen-Devel (E-mail)" <xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
Cc: Dave Winchell <dwinchell@virtualiron.com>
Subject: Re: Xen system skew MUCH worse than tsc skew (was RE: RE: [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasing hvm guest time))
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 09:27:33 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <C49CD805.1AD83%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080710164238562.00000003744@djm-pc>

On 10/7/08 23:42, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:

> SO XEN SYSTEM TIME MAX SKEW IS >30X WORSE THAN TSC MAX SKEW!
> 
> Looks to me like there's still something algorithmically wrong
> and its not just natural skew and jitter.  Maybe some corner
> case in the scale-delta code?  Also, should interrupts be turned
> off during the calibration part of init_pit_and_calibrate_tsc()
> (which might cause different scaling factors for each CPU)?

I didn't measure skew across CPUs. I measured jitter between one local TSC
and the chosen platform timer for calibration (in my case I think this was
the HPET). I did this because getting a consistent tick rate from the
platform timer, and from each local TSC, is the basis for the calibration
algorithm. The more jitter there is between them, the less well it will
work.

I implemented a user-space program to collect the required stats. It used
CLI/STI to prevent getting interrupted when reading the timer pair.

 -- Keir

  reply	other threads:[~2008-07-11  8:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-07-02 16:03 [PATCH] strictly increasing hvm guest time Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-02 16:07 ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-02 21:50   ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-02 22:41     ` [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasing hvm guest time) Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-03  8:03       ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-03 16:24         ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-03 16:35           ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-03 20:03             ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-03 23:00               ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-04 15:11                 ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-04 15:22                   ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-04 19:32                     ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-04 19:56                       ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-10  0:24                         ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-10  7:40                           ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-10 22:42                             ` Xen system skew MUCH worse than tsc skew (was RE: RE: [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasing hvm guest time)) Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-11  8:27                               ` Keir Fraser [this message]
2008-07-11 20:53                                 ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-11 21:27                                   ` Xen system skew MUCH worse than tsc skew (was RE: RE: [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasinghvm " Ian Pratt
2008-07-12 21:05                                     ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-11 21:27                                   ` Xen system skew MUCH worse than tsc skew (was RE: RE: [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasing hvm " Keir Fraser
2008-07-12 21:07                                     ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-19 17:51                                 ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-21  8:32                                   ` Keir Fraser
2008-07-22 22:27                                     ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-22 23:07                                       ` Xen system skew MUCH worse than tsc skew (was RE: RE: [PATCH] record max stime skew (was RE: [PATCH] strictly increasinghvm " Ian Pratt
2008-07-23  0:40                                         ` Dan Magenheimer
2008-07-23  1:16                                           ` Ian Pratt
2008-07-23  6:11                                       ` Tian, Kevin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=C49CD805.1AD83%keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
    --to=keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com \
    --cc=dan.magenheimer@oracle.com \
    --cc=dwinchell@virtualiron.com \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xensource.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.