On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 2015-03-26 11:51-0700, Andy Lutomirski: >> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:29 AM, Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 04:22:03PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote: >> >> Suppose we start out with all vcpus agreeing on their pvti and perfect >> >> invariant TSCs. Now the host updates its frequency (due to NTP or >> >> whatever). KVM updates vcpu 0's pvti. Before KVM updates vcpu 1's >> >> pvti, guest code on vcpus 0 and 1 see synced TSCs but different pvti. >> >> They'll disagree on the time, and one of them will be ahead until vcpu >> >> 1's pvti gets updated. >> > >> > The masterclock scheme enforces the same system_timestamp/tsc_timestamp pairs >> > to be visible at one time, for all vcpus. >> > >> > >> > * That is, when timespec0 != timespec1, M < N. Unfortunately that is >> > * not >> > * always the case (the difference between two distinct xtime instances >> > * might be smaller then the difference between corresponding TSC reads, >> > * when updating guest vcpus pvclock areas). >> > * >> > * To avoid that problem, do not allow visibility of distinct >> > * system_timestamp/tsc_timestamp values simultaneously: use a master >> > * copy of host monotonic time values. Update that master copy >> > * in lockstep. >> >> Yuck. So we have per cpu timing data, but the protocol is only usable >> for monotonic timing because we forcibly freeze all vcpus when we >> update the nominally per cpu data. >> >> The obvious guest implementations are still unnecessarily slow, >> though. It would be nice if the guest could get away without using >> any getcpu operation at all. >> >> Even if we fixed the host to increment version as advertised, I think >> we can't avoid two getcpu ops. We need one before rdtsc to figure out >> which pvti to look at, > > Yes. > >> and we need another to make sure that we were >> actually on that cpu at the time we did rdtsc. (Rdtscp doesn't help >> -- we need to check version before rdtsc, and we don't know what >> version to check until we do a getcpu.). > > Exactly, reading cpuid after rdtsc doesn't do that though, we could have > migrated back between those reads. > rtdscp would allow us to check that we read tsc of pvti's cpu. > (It doesn't get rid of that first read.) > >> The migration hook has the >> same issue -- we need to check the migration count, then confirm we're >> on that cpu, then check the migration count again, and we can't do >> that until we know what cpu we're on. > > True; the revert has a bug -- we need to check cpuid for the second > time before rdtsc. (Migration hook is there just because we don't know > which cpu executed rdtsc.) One way or another, I'm planning on completely rewriting the vdso code. An early draft is here: https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/vdso&id=57ace6e6e032afc4faf7b9ec52f78a8e6642c980 but I can't finish it until the KVM side shakes out. I think there are at least two ways that would work: a) If KVM incremented version as advertised: cpu = getcpu(); pvti = pvti for cpu; ver1 = pvti->version; check stable bit; rdtsc_barrier, rdtsc, read scale, shift, etc. if (getcpu() != cpu) retry; if (pvti->version != ver1) retry; I think this is safe because, we're guaranteed that there was an interval (between the two version reads) in which the vcpu we think we're on was running and the kvmclock data was valid and marked stable, and we know that the tsc we read came from that interval. Note: rdtscp isn't needed. If we're stable, is makes no difference which cpu's tsc we actually read. b) If version remains buggy but we use this migrations_from hack: cpu = getcpu(); pvti = pvti for cpu; m1 = pvti->migrations_from; barrier(); ver1 = pvti->version; check stable bit; rdtsc_barrier, rdtsc, read scale, shift, etc. if (getcpu() != cpu) retry; if (pvti->version != ver1) retry; /* probably not really needed */ barrier(); if (pvti->migrations_from != m1) retry; This is just like (a), except that we're using a guest kernel hack to ensure that no one migrated off the vcpu during the version-protected critical section and that we were, in fact, on that vcpu at some point during that critical section. Once we've ensured that we were on pvti's associated vcpu for the entire time we were reading it, then we are protected by the existing versioning in the host. > >> If, on the other hand, we could rely on having all of these things in >> sync, then this complication goes away, and we go down from two getcpu >> ops to zero. > > (Yeah, we should look what are the drawbacks of doing it differently.) If the versioning were fixed, I think we could almost get away with: pvti = pvti for vcpu 0; ver1 = pvti->version; check stable bit; rdtsc_barrier, rdtsc, read scale, shift, etc. if (pvti->version != ver1) retry; This guarantees that the tsc came from an interval in which vcpu0's kvmclock was *marked* stable. If vcpu0's kvmclock were genuinely stable in that interval, then we'd be fine, but there's a race window in which the kvmclock is *not* stable and vcpu 0 wasn't running. Why doesn't KVM just update all of the kvmclock data at once? (For that matter, why is the pvti in guest memory at all? Wouldn't this all be simpler if the kvmclock data were host-allocated so the host could write it directly and maybe even share it between guests?) --Andy -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
