On 06/01/17 10:53, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 06, 2017 at 10:38:49AM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>> On 06/01/17 10:00, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>> Hi Marc,
>>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 05, 2017 at 06:11:14PM +0000, Marc Zyngier wrote:
>>>> [adding the arm64 maintainers, plus Mark as arch timer maintainer]
>>>
>>> Right, sorry, I should have done that already.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/16 20:47, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>>>>> Using the physical counter allows KVM to retain the offset between the
>>>>> virtual and physical counter as long as it is actively running a VCPU.
>>>>>
>>>>> As soon as a VCPU is released, another thread is scheduled or we start
>>>>> running userspace applications, we reset the offset to 0, so that VDSO
>>>>> operations can still read the virtual counter and get the same view of
>>>>> time as the kernel.
>>>>>
>>>>> This opens up potential improvements for KVM performance.
>>>>>
>>>>> VHE kernels or kernels using the virtual timer are unaffected by this.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>> ---
>>>>> arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h | 6 ++++--
>>>>> drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 2 +-
>>>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
>>>>> index eaa5bbe..cec2549 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
>>>>> +++ b/arch/arm64/include/asm/arch_timer.h
>>>>> @@ -139,11 +139,13 @@ static inline void arch_timer_set_cntkctl(u32 cntkctl)
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline u64 arch_counter_get_cntpct(void)
>>>>> {
>>>>> + u64 cval;
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * AArch64 kernel and user space mandate the use of CNTVCT.
>>>>> */
>>>>> - BUG();
>>>>> - return 0;
>>>>> + isb();
>>>>> + asm volatile("mrs %0, cntpct_el0" : "=r" (cval));
>>>>> + return cval;
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> static inline u64 arch_counter_get_cntvct(void)
>>>>> diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>>>>> index 73c487d..a5b0789 100644
>>>>> --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>>>>> +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
>>>>> @@ -597,7 +597,7 @@ static void __init arch_counter_register(unsigned type)
>>>>>
>>>>> /* Register the CP15 based counter if we have one */
>>>>> if (type & ARCH_CP15_TIMER) {
>>>>> - if (IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_ARM64) || arch_timer_uses_ppi == VIRT_PPI)
>>>>> + if (arch_timer_uses_ppi == VIRT_PPI || is_kernel_in_hyp_mode())
>>>>
>>>> Why do we have this is_kernel_in_hyp_mode clause? I can't think of any
>>>> reason for a VHE kernel to use the virtual counter at all...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Good question. I think I just didn't want to change behavior from the
>>> existing functionality mre than necessary.
>>>
>>> Note that on a VHE kernel this will be the EL2 virtual counter, not the
>>> EL1 virtual counter, due to the register redirection. Are the virtual
>>> and physical EL2 counters always equivalent on a VHE system?
>>
>> Yes, they are. CNTVOFF_EL2 is ignored in that case, and you get an extra
>> interrupt for the new EL2 virtual timer as well.
>>
>
> ok, in that case I suppose I can just check for arch_timer_uses_ppi ==
> VIRT_PPI and be done with it.
I wonder what we should do for get_cycles(), which is hardwired to the
virtual counter at the moment. If we decide to use the physical counter
on systems identified as hosts, we may have to revise this as well (I
feel the need for an alternative... ;-).
Thanks,
M.
--
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...
--
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
