On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 08:27:45PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 04/03/2022 15:41, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 14, 2022 at 01:09:06PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >> Currently, when Intel PT is used within a VM guest, it is not possible to
> >> make use of TSC because perf clock is subject to paravirtualization.
> >
> > Yeah, so how much of that still makes sense, or ever did? AFAIK the
> > whole pv_clock thing is utter crazy. Should we not fix that instead?
>
> Presumably pv_clock must work with different host operating systems.
> Similarly, KVM must work with different guest operating systems.
> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I imagine re-engineering time virtualization
> might be a pretty big deal, far exceeding the scope of these patches.
I think not; on both counts. That is, I don't think it's going to be
hard, and even it if were, it would still be the right thing to do.
We're not going to add interface just to work around a known broken
piece of crap just because we don't want to fix it.
So I'm thinking we should do the below and simply ignore any paravirt
sched clock offered when there's ART on.
---
diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
index 4420499f7bb4..a1f179ed39bf 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
@@ -145,6 +145,15 @@ DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(pv_sched_clock, native_sched_clock);
void paravirt_set_sched_clock(u64 (*func)(void))
{
+ /*
+ * Anything with ART on promises to have sane TSC, otherwise the whole
+ * ART thing is useless. In order to make ART useful for guests, we
+ * should continue to use the TSC. As such, ignore any paravirt
+ * muckery.
+ */
+ if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ART))
+ return;
+
static_call_update(pv_sched_clock, func);
}
