From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
To: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, kvm-devel <kvm@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] KVM: x86: fix KVM_SET_CLOCK relative to setting correct clock value
Date: Thu, 11 May 2017 12:39:06 -0300 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170511153903.GC2308@amt.cnet> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170510180430.GA2240@potion>
On Wed, May 10, 2017 at 08:04:31PM +0200, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2017-05-03 10:43-0300, Marcelo Tosatti:
> > In the masterclock enabled case, kvmclock_offset must be adjusted so
> > that user_ns.clock = master_kernel_ns + kvmclock_offset (that is, the
> > value set from KVM_SET_CLOCK is the one visible at system_timestamp).
>
> IIUC, we want to achieve
>
> user_ns.clock == get_kvmclock_ns(kvm)
Yes, or equivalently we want
user_ns.clock = master_kernel_ns + kvmclock_offset,
when
guest_rdtsc() == ka->master_cycle_now.
> and the important fix for kvm master clock is the move of
> kvm_gen_update_masterclock() before we read the time.
Yes.
> The rest is just a minor optimization that also ignores time since
> master_kernel_ns() and therefore pins user_ns.clock to a slightly
> earlier time.
>
> But all attention was given to the "minor optimization" -- have I missed
> something about the direct use of ka->master_kernel_ns?
I haven't attempted to optimize anything. Not sure what you mean.
>
> (If not, I'd rather have just the one-line move.)
>
> ---
> Detailed reasoning.
>
> kvm_gen_update_masterclock() shifts the master clock (changes its
> percieved frequency, because it is reset from kernel boot clock again,
> even though they are diverging), so we must not compute the
> kvmclock_offset with an old master clock and apply it to a shifted one.
>
> Using offset from ka->master_kernel_ns or get_kvmclock_ns()
> ("ka->master_kernel_ns + small delta") doesn't make much difference
> then, because the user_ns is already an indeterminable point in the
> past. (We just assume that user_ns.clock is now, whenever that is.)
>
> ---
> And a possible improvement.
>
> Using kvm_gen_update_masterclock() seems superfluous. There are three
> major cases depending on state of the master clock:
>
> enabled)
> We can just match the kvmclock_offset so the following holds
> user_ns.clock == get_kvmclock_ns(kvm)
> No need to update the master clock.
>
> disabled)
> The kvmclock_offset is set from the kernel boot clock and that is
> already correct.
>
> disabled, but call to kvm_gen_update_masterclock() would enable it)
> The master clock will be updates with the kernel boot clock when a
> VCPU runs. This means that master clock and kernel boot clock will
> begin diverging at a later point, but the initial offset is the same.
> Userspace can only tell the difference by calling KVM_GET_CLOCK
> afterwards and seeing the stable bit unset.
> Guest is mostly unaffected -- the inaccuracy from calling
> KVM_SET_CLOCK is much bigger than accumulation of a slightly
> different frequency will in few jiffies.
>
> Do you see a reason to use kvm_gen_update_masterclock()?
>
> I think that the code could be just:
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> index 464da936c53d..f024216a858d 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> @@ -4177,7 +4177,7 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp,
> r = 0;
> now_ns = get_kvmclock_ns(kvm);
> kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset += user_ns.clock - now_ns;
> - kvm_gen_update_masterclock(kvm);
> + kvm_make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE);
No, this is wrong. kvm_gen_update_masterclock() must happen before
the assignment of kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset and get_kvmclock_ns().
(so that kvm_gen_update_masterclock sets ka->use_master_clock to true
and get_kvmclock_ns() enters this case:
hv_clock.tsc_timestamp = ka->master_cycle_now;
hv_clock.system_time = ka->master_kernel_ns +
ka->kvmclock_offset;
spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
kvm_get_time_scale(NSEC_PER_SEC, __this_cpu_read(cpu_tsc_khz) *
1000LL,
&hv_clock.tsc_shift,
&hv_clock.tsc_to_system_mul);
return __pvclock_read_cycles(&hv_clock, rdtsc());
Makes sense?
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-05-11 15:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-05-02 21:36 [PATCH] KVM: x86: fix KVM_SET_CLOCK relative to setting correct clock value Marcelo Tosatti
2017-05-03 13:08 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-05-03 13:40 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2017-05-03 13:55 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-05-03 18:24 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2017-05-03 13:43 ` [PATCH v2] " Marcelo Tosatti
2017-05-10 18:04 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-05-11 15:39 ` Marcelo Tosatti [this message]
2017-05-12 14:13 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-05-12 14:36 ` Paolo Bonzini
2017-05-12 15:31 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2017-05-12 17:37 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-05-13 3:46 ` Marcelo Tosatti
2017-05-15 16:19 ` Radim Krčmář
2017-05-15 21:06 ` Marcelo Tosatti
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=20170511153903.GC2308@amt.cnet \
--to=mtosatti@redhat.com \
--cc=kvm@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=rkrcmar@redhat.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox