From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: Use of absolute timeouts for oneshot timers
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2007 10:21:38 +0100
Message-ID: <1173604898.24738.1204.camel@localhost.localdomain>
References: <45F33697.4000000@goop.org>
	 <1173568491.24738.1194.camel@localhost.localdomain>
	 <45F35088.7020607@goop.org>
Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751895AbXCKJPQ@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <45F35088.7020607@goop.org>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
To: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@goop.org>
Cc: Dan Hecht <dhecht@vmware.com>, john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, Virtualization Mailing List <virtualization@lists.osdl.org>, Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
List-Id: virtualization@lists.linuxfoundation.org

On Sat, 2007-03-10 at 16:42 -0800, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > It's simply enforced in NO_HZ, HIGHRES mode as we operate in absolute
> > time, which is read back from the clocksource, even if we use a relative
> > value for real hardware clock event devices to program the next event.
> > We calculate the delta between the absolute event and now. So we never
> > get an accumulating error.
> >
> > What problem are you observing ?
> 
> Actually, two things.  There was the unexpected pauses during boot,
> which is trivially fixable by not using the Xen periodic timer, and
> using the single-shot fallback.
> 
> But I'm making the more general observation that if you use an absolute
> rather than relative time to set the single-shot timeout, then you have
> to deal with a long-term cumulative drift between the kernel's monotonic
> time and the hypervisor's monotonic time.  This can happen even if your
> clocksource is derived directly from the hypervisor monotonic time,
> because running ntp will warp the kernel's time, and so it will drift
> with respect to the hypervisor clock.  You can only avoid this by 1) not
> allowing adjtime, or 2) making those same adjtime warps to the
> hypervisor time.  Neither of these is a good general solution.

Sigh, yes. Using a relative time for the next event is probably the
least ugly solution

	tglx