From: "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
To: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
Cc: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
Teddy Astie <teddy.astie@vates.tech>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 RFC] x86/time: avoid early uses of NOW() to return zero
Date: Thu, 14 May 2026 17:56:34 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <agXwsshLlV50dcnV@macbook.local> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <68b1607a-f2a1-4f53-84c5-43c61eeb1869@suse.com>
On Wed, May 13, 2026 at 08:44:46AM +0200, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Waiting loops like the one in flush_command_buffer() will degenerate to
> infinite ones when used early enough for NOW() to still return constant
> zero. Make sure the returned value at least monotonically increases. When
> available, use nominal frequency values as initial approximation.
>
> Do this only in get_s_time(), as producing a sane value in
> get_s_time_fixed() for non-zero inputs won't be reasonably possible.
> Put an assertion there.
>
> Reported-by: Roger Pau Monné <roger.pau@citrix.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
> ---
> RFC: This breaks at least the TSM_BOOT case printk_start_of_line(), which
> checks for NOW() returning 0 (falling back to TSM_RAW in this case).
> For now I have no idea how to avoid this; perhaps that's tolerable at
> least in the case where we put in place an early estimate? Should we
> maybe weaken the fallback condition to take effect for any value
> below 1μs?
Maybe it's fine to print cycles unconditionally until we reach
SYS_STATE_smp_boot when we know the per-cpu scale is correctly set?
>
> RFC: While generally the mentioned waiting loops will take longer to time
> out, on a very fast CPU tight loops may time out too early.
>
> RFC: For the AMD/Hygon case, if the "nominal" value isn't available, we
> could use the "high" one. That would cause NOW() to run too slowly
> (until the scale is properly set), but maybe that's still better than
> it returning 0? (As it stands, I can't really test the new code
> there, as my Rome system only supplies the lo/hi pair of values.)
Using the "high" frequency would seem fine to me.
>
> RFC: On the 2nd pass through early_cpu_init() it may be okay to skip the
> new additions.
>
> With "x86/time: set AP's TSC scale estimate earlier" the counter update
> may not need to be atomic anymore, as then only the BSP can reasonably hit
> that path.
>
> I don't think Fixes: tags should be put here. If we did, we'd have to
> enumerate all introductions of early uses of NOW() (or get_s_time()), with
> the exception of those dealing with getting back 0 (which I expect is only
> printk_start_of_line()). Will want backporting nevertheless (unless deemed
> too risky).
> ---
> v2: Add assertion to get_s_time_fixed(). Use nominal frequencies for very
> early setting, if available.
>
> --- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c 2026-05-13 08:35:28.640503356 +0200
> +++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/cpu/common.c 2026-05-12 12:30:35.475284195 +0200
> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
> #include <asm/random.h>
> #include <asm/setup.h>
> #include <asm/shstk.h>
> +#include <asm/time.h>
> #include <asm/xstate.h>
>
> #include <public/sysctl.h>
> @@ -403,6 +404,25 @@ void __init early_cpu_init(bool verbose)
> &c->x86_capability[FEATURESET_7d1]);
> }
>
> + if (c->cpuid_level >= 0x15) {
> + cpuid(0x15, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> +
> + if (ecx && ebx && eax)
> + preset_tsc_scale(DIV_ROUND_UP(ecx * 1UL * ebx, eax));
> + else if (c->cpuid_level >= 0x16) {
> + /* Assume CPU base freq ≈ TSC freq. */
> + cpuid(0x16, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> + if (eax)
> + preset_tsc_scale(eax * 1000000UL);
> + }
> + } else if (c->vendor & (X86_VENDOR_AMD | X86_VENDOR_HYGON)) {
> + unsigned int nom_mhz = 0;
> +
> + amd_process_freq(c, NULL, &nom_mhz, NULL);
> + if (nom_mhz)
> + preset_tsc_scale(nom_mhz * 1000000UL);
> + }
> +
> eax = cpuid_eax(0x80000000);
> if ((eax >> 16) == 0x8000 && eax >= 0x80000008) {
> ebx = eax >= 0x8000001f ? cpuid_ebx(0x8000001f) : 0;
> --- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/time.h 2026-05-13 08:35:28.640503356 +0200
> +++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/include/asm/time.h 2026-05-12 12:25:14.435489339 +0200
> @@ -23,6 +23,7 @@ mktime (unsigned int year, unsigned int
> int time_suspend(void);
> int time_resume(void);
>
> +void preset_tsc_scale(unsigned long freq);
> void init_percpu_time(void);
> void time_latch_stamps(void);
>
> --- unstable.orig/xen/arch/x86/time.c 2026-05-13 08:35:28.640503356 +0200
> +++ unstable/xen/arch/x86/time.c 2026-05-13 08:33:54.000000000 +0200
> @@ -1655,6 +1655,9 @@ s_time_t get_s_time_fixed(u64 at_tsc)
> const struct cpu_time *t = &this_cpu(cpu_time);
> u64 tsc, delta;
>
> + /* scale_delta() degenerates when the scale wasn't set yet. */
> + ASSERT(t->tsc_scale.mul_frac);
> +
> if ( at_tsc )
> tsc = at_tsc;
> else
> @@ -1670,6 +1673,20 @@ s_time_t get_s_time_fixed(u64 at_tsc)
>
> s_time_t get_s_time(void)
> {
> + /*
> + * Before the TSC scale is set, avoid returning constant 0 (or whatever
> + * this_cpu(cpu_time).stamp.local_stime is set to). While the returned
> + * value is in no way representing time, it at least increases
> + * monotonically, thus avoiding e.g. waiting loops to degenerate to
> + * entirely infinite ones.
> + */
> + if ( unlikely(!this_cpu(cpu_time).tsc_scale.mul_frac) )
> + {
> + static s_time_t counter;
> +
> + return arch_fetch_and_add(&counter, 1);
> + }
> +
> return get_s_time_fixed(0);
> }
>
> @@ -2623,6 +2640,21 @@ int __init init_xen_time(void)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +/* BSP-only function to pre-set an approximate TSC scale. */
> +void __init preset_tsc_scale(unsigned long freq)
> +{
> + struct cpu_time *t = &this_cpu(cpu_time);
> +
> + /*
> + * The incoming frequency is only approximate (nominal). Increase it by
> + * 1% to make NOW() output rather a little too slow than too fast, thus
> + * avoiding a possible backwards jump once the final scale is set.
> + */
> + freq += DIV_ROUND_UP(freq, 100);
To avoid such possible jump backwards, won't it safer to also update
the ->local_stime and ->local_tsc fields at the time the new scale is
set? Updatign those ahead of setting the new scale should avoid any
backward jumps.
Thanks, Roger.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2026-05-14 15:57 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2026-05-13 6:44 [PATCH v2 RFC] x86/time: avoid early uses of NOW() to return zero Jan Beulich
2026-05-14 15:56 ` Roger Pau Monné [this message]
2026-05-15 7:15 ` Jan Beulich
2026-05-15 13:12 ` Roger Pau Monné
2026-05-18 8:05 ` Jan Beulich
2026-05-20 10:02 ` Roger Pau Monné
2026-05-20 12:30 ` Jan Beulich
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=agXwsshLlV50dcnV@macbook.local \
--to=roger.pau@citrix.com \
--cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
--cc=jbeulich@suse.com \
--cc=teddy.astie@vates.tech \
--cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
/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.