Hi Vitaly,
On Mon, Mar 29, 2021 at 01:47:59PM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> When guest time is reset with KVM_SET_CLOCK(0), it is possible for
> hv_clock->system_time to become a small negative number. This happens
> because in KVM_SET_CLOCK handling we set kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset based
> on get_kvmclock_ns(kvm) but when KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE is handled,
> kvm_guest_time_update() does
>
> hv_clock.system_time = ka->master_kernel_ns + v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
Hum, masterclock update should always precede KVM_SET_CLOCK() call.
So when KVM_SET_CLOCK(0) is called, we'd like the guest (or the
following):
static __always_inline
u64 __pvclock_read_cycles(const struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info *src, u64 tsc)
{
u64 delta = tsc - src->tsc_timestamp;
u64 offset = pvclock_scale_delta(delta, src->tsc_to_system_mul,
src->tsc_shift);
return src->system_time + offset;
}
To return 0 (which won't happen if pvclock_data->system_time is being
initialized to a negative value).
KVM_SET_CLOCK(0)
kvm_gen_update_masterclock(kvm);
now_ns = get_kvmclock_ns(kvm);
kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset += user_ns.clock - now_ns = -now_ns;
hv_clock.tsc_timestamp = ka->master_cycle_now;
hv_clock.system_time = ka->master_kernel_ns + ka->kvmclock_offset;
Wonder if the negative value happens due to the switch from
masterclock=off -> on (get_kvmclock_ns reading kernel time directly).
Perhaps this error is being added to clock when migration is performed.
But just thinking out loud...
> And 'master_kernel_ns' represents the last time when masterclock
> got updated, it can precede KVM_SET_CLOCK() call. Normally, this is not a
> problem, the difference is very small, e.g. I'm observing
> hv_clock.system_time = -70 ns. The issue comes from the fact that
> 'hv_clock.system_time' is stored as unsigned and 'system_time / 100' in
> compute_tsc_page_parameters() becomes a very big number.
Which it is (a very big number).
> Use div_s64() to get the proper result when dividing maybe-negative
> 'hv_clock.system_time' by 100.
Well hv_clock.system_time is not negative. It is positive.
> Signed-off-by: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c | 9 ++++++---
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> index f98370a39936..0529b892f634 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kvm/hyperv.c
> @@ -1070,10 +1070,13 @@ static bool compute_tsc_page_parameters(struct pvclock_vcpu_time_info *hv_clock,
> hv_clock->tsc_to_system_mul,
> 100);
>
> - tsc_ref->tsc_offset = hv_clock->system_time;
> - do_div(tsc_ref->tsc_offset, 100);
> - tsc_ref->tsc_offset -=
> + /*
> + * Note: 'hv_clock->system_time' despite being 'u64' can hold a negative
> + * value here, thus div_s64().
> + */
> + tsc_ref->tsc_offset = div_s64(hv_clock->system_time, 100) -
> mul_u64_u64_shr(hv_clock->tsc_timestamp, tsc_ref->tsc_scale, 64);
> +
> return true;
> }
Won't the guest see:
0.1, 0.005, 0.0025, 0.0001, ..., 0, 0.0001, 0.0025, 0.005, 0.1, ...
As system_time progresses from negative value to positive value with
the above fix?
While the fix seems OK in practice, perhaps the negative system_time
could be fixed instead.
