Re: Bug in KVM clock backwards compensation

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 04/28/2011 12:13 AM, Roedel, Joerg wrote:
On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 02:59:57AM -0400, Zachary Amsden wrote:
So I've been going over the new code changes to the TSC related code and
I don't like one particular set of changes.  In particular, here:

          kvm_x86_ops->vcpu_load(vcpu, cpu);
          if (unlikely(vcpu->cpu != cpu) || check_tsc_unstable()) {
                  /* Make sure TSC doesn't go backwards */
                  s64 tsc_delta;
                  u64 tsc;

                  kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TSC,&tsc);
                  tsc_delta = !vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc ? 0 :
                               tsc - vcpu->arch.last_guest_tsc;

                  if (tsc_delta<  0)
                          mark_tsc_unstable("KVM discovered backwards TSC");
                  if (check_tsc_unstable()) {
                          kvm_x86_ops->adjust_tsc_offset(vcpu, -tsc_delta);
                          vcpu->arch.tsc_catchup = 1;
                  }


The point of this code fragment is to test the host clock to see if it
is stable, because we may have just come back from an idle phase which
stopped the TSC, switched CPUs, or come back from a deep sleep state
which reset the host TSC.
I see it different. This code wants to check if the _guest_ tsc moves
forwared (or at least not backwards). So it is fully legitimate to just
do this by reading the guest-tsc and compare it to the last one the
guest had.

That wasn't the intention when I wrote that code. It's simply there to detect backwards motion of the host TSC. The guest TSC can legally go backwards whenever the guest decides to change it, so checking the guest TSC doesn't make sense here.

I saw a patch floating around that touched this code recently, but I
think there's a definite issue here that needs addressing.
In fact, this change was done to address one of your concerns. You
mentioned that the values passed to adjust_tsc_offset() were in
unconsistent units in my first version of tsc-scaling. This was a right
objection because one call-site used guest-tsc-units while the other
used host-tsc-units. This change intended to fix that by using
guest-tsc-units always for adjust_tsc_offset().

Not that the guest and the host tsc have the same units on current
machines. But with tsc-scaling these units are different.

Yes, with tsc-scaling, the machines already have stable TSCs - the above test is for older hardware which could have problems, and can be reverted back to the original code without worrying about switching units.

Zach
--
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


[Index of Archives]     [KVM ARM]     [KVM ia64]     [KVM ppc]     [Virtualization Tools]     [Spice Development]     [Libvirt]     [Libvirt Users]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite Questions]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [XFree86]
  Powered by Linux