2017-01-20 14:36+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
> On 20/01/2017 14:07, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 01:55:27PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 20/01/2017 13:20, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>>> kernel/time/timekeeping.c | 79 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>
>>> Why not leave this in drivers/ptp/ptp_chardev.c?
>>
>> timekeeper_lock
>
> Why does emulate_ptp_sys_offset need it, if the current PTP_SYS_OFFSET
> code doesn't? Is the latency acceptable (considering this is a raw spin
> lock) or is there a seqlock that we can use instead (such as tk_core.seq
> like in get_device_system_crosststamp)?
The spinlock prevents writers to take the tk_core.seq, which means that
time cannot be changed during that.
The simplest alternative would be to use tk_core.seq for all our reads,
but that would increse the chance of re-reading, even infinitely.
But we don't need to read everything with the same time base -- if the
time is changed (by NTP/user/...) between our reads, then the value will
be off, but if writer took tk_core.seq just to accumulate current time,
then the time after accumulation stays the same and it would work as if
we had the tk_core.seq for the whole time.
Another solution would be to do just one one read and set it to all
saples -- the difference between t[i] and t[i+2] would be 0. We are
quite sure the just one read is enough, this hack could be even better.
>>>> + if (ptp->info->emulate_ptp_sys_offset_mean) {
>>>> + err = emulate_ptp_sys_offset(ptp->info, sysoff, arg);
>>>> + break;
>>>> + }
>>>
>>> I think this should be simply "if (!ptp->info->gettime64)" and,
>>> likewise, there should be an emulation based getcrosststamp in
>>> ptp_clock_gettime.
>>>
>>> Paolo
>>
>> gettime64 is called directly via ptp_clock_gettime.
>
> Yes, but ptp_clock_gettime can be taught to use getcrosststamp instead.
I agree,
if (!gettime64)
use getcrosststamp
and KVM PTP device will not implement gettime64().
--
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
