Re: [patch 00/11] x86/vdso: Cleanups, simmplifications and CLOCK_TAI support
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@amacapital.net>
Date: 2018-10-04 14:00:45
On Oct 4, 2018, at 1:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra [off-list ref] wrote:quoted
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: I was hoping to hear this from you :-) If I am to suggest how we can move forward I'd propose: - Check if pure TSC can be used on SkyLake+ systems (where TSC scaling is supported). - Check if non-masterclock mode is still needed. E.g. HyperV's TSC page clocksource is a single page for the whole VM, not a per-cpu thing. Can we think that all the buggy hardware is already gone?No, and it is not the hardware you have to worry about (mostly), it is the frigging PoS firmware people put on it. Ever since Nehalem TSC is stable (unless you get to >4 socket systems, after which it still can be, but bets are off). But even relatively recent systems fail the TSC sync test because firmware messes it up by writing to either MSR_TSC or MSR_TSC_ADJUST. But the thing is, if the TSC is not synced, you cannot use it for timekeeping, full stop. So having a single page is fine, it either contains a mult/shift that is valid, or it indicates TSC is messed up and you fall back to something else. There is no inbetween there. For sched_clock we can still use the global page, because the rate will still be the same for each cpu, it's just offset between CPUs and the code compensates for that.
But if we’re in a KVM guest, then the clock will jump around on the same *vCPU* when the vCPU migrates. But I don’t see how kvmclock helps here, since I don’t think it’s used for sched_clock. _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@lists.linux-foundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization