On 22-03-19, 11:49, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> On 21-03-19, 12:45, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 10:22:23AM +0530, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > index 65e4559eef2f..1ac8c710cccc 100644
> > > --- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
> > > @@ -6649,10 +6649,8 @@ static void kvm_hyperv_tsc_notifier(void)
> > > }
> > > #endif
> > >
> > > -static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > - void *data)
> > > +static void __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct cpufreq_freqs *freq, int cpu)
> > > {
> > > - struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > struct kvm *kvm;
> > > struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu;
> > > int i, send_ipi = 0;
> > > @@ -6696,17 +6694,12 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > *
> > > */
> > >
> > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > - if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > - return 0;
> > > -
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > >
> > > spin_lock(&kvm_lock);
> > > list_for_each_entry(kvm, &vm_list, vm_list) {
> > > kvm_for_each_vcpu(i, vcpu, kvm) {
> > > - if (vcpu->cpu != freq->cpu)
> > > + if (vcpu->cpu != cpu)
> > > continue;
> > > kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
> > > if (vcpu->cpu != smp_processor_id())
> > > @@ -6728,8 +6721,24 @@ static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long va
> > > * guest context is entered kvmclock will be updated,
> > > * so the guest will not see stale values.
> > > */
> > > - smp_call_function_single(freq->cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > + smp_call_function_single(cpu, tsc_khz_changed, freq, 1);
> > > }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +static int kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(struct notifier_block *nb, unsigned long val,
> > > + void *data)
> > > +{
> > > + struct cpufreq_freqs *freq = data;
> > > + int cpu;
> > > +
> > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_PRECHANGE && freq->old > freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > + if (val == CPUFREQ_POSTCHANGE && freq->old < freq->new)
> > > + return 0;
> > > +
> > > + for_each_cpu(cpu, freq->policy->cpus)
> > > + __kvmclock_cpufreq_notifier(freq, cpu);
> > > +
> > > return 0;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > Then why to we pretend otherwise here?
>
> My intention was to not add any bug here because of lack of my
> knowledge of the architecture in question and so I tried to be safe.
>
> If you guys think the behavior should be same here as of the tsc, then
> we can add similar checks here.
I am rebasing this patch over Rafael's patch [1] and wondering if I
should change anything here.
--
viresh
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/38900622.ao2n2t5aPS@kreacher/
