Il 28/08/2013 04:52, Marcelo Tosatti ha scritto:
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2013 at 07:05:20PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> Il 20/08/2013 20:20, Marcelo Tosatti ha scritto:
>>>
>>> The offset to add to the hosts monotonic time, kvmclock_offset, is
>>> calculated against the monotonic time at KVM_SET_CLOCK ioctl time.
>>>
>>> Request a master clock update at this time, to reduce a potentially
>>> unbounded difference between the values of the masterclock and
>>> the clock value used to calculate kvmclock_offset.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> Index: linux-2.6-kvmclock-fixes/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>> ===================================================================
>>> --- linux-2.6-kvmclock-fixes.orig/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>> +++ linux-2.6-kvmclock-fixes/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
>>> @@ -3806,6 +3806,7 @@ long kvm_arch_vm_ioctl(struct file *filp
>>> delta = user_ns.clock - now_ns;
>>> local_irq_enable();
>>> kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset = delta;
>>> + kvm_gen_update_masterclock(kvm);
>>> break;
>>> }
>>> case KVM_GET_CLOCK: {
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> While reviewing this patch, which BTW looks good, I noticed the handling
>> of KVM_REQ_MCLOCK_INPROGRESS, the dummy request that is never processed
>> and is only used to block guest entry.
>>
>> It seems to me that this bit is not necessary. After
>> KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE is issued, no guest entries will happen because
>> kvm_guest_time_update will try to take the pvclock_gtod_sync_lock,
>> currently taken by kvm_gen_update_masterclock.
>
> Not entirely clear, to cancel guest entry the bit is necessary:
>
> if (vcpu->mode == EXITING_GUEST_MODE || vcpu->requests
> || need_resched() || signal_pending(current)) {
> vcpu->mode = OUTSIDE_GUEST_MODE;
> smp_wmb();
> local_irq_enable();
> preempt_enable();
> r = 1;
> goto cancel_injection;
> }
Yes, KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE is enough to cancel guest entries too. See
code below.
>> Thus, you do not need the dummy request. You can simply issue
>> KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE before calling pvclock_update_vm_gtod_copy (with
>> the side effect of exiting VCPUs). VCPUs will stall in
>> kvm_guest_time_update until pvclock_gtod_sync_lock is released by
>> kvm_gen_update_masterclock. What do you think?
>
> Not sure its safe. Can you describe the safety of your proposal in more
> detail ?
Here is the code I was thinking of:
spin_lock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
make_all_cpus_request(kvm, KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE);
/*
* No guest entries from this point: VCPUs will be spinning
* on pvclock_gtod_sync_lock in kvm_guest_time_update.
*/
pvclock_update_vm_gtod_copy(kvm);
/*
* Let kvm_guest_time_update continue: entering the guest
* is now allowed too.
*/
spin_unlock(&ka->pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE is used to cancel guest entry and execute
kvm_guest_time_update. But kvm_guest_time_update will spin on
pvclock_gtod_sync_lock until pvclock_update_vm_gtod_copy exits and
kvm_gen_update_masterclock releases the spinlock.
>> On top of this, optionally the spinlock could become an rw_semaphore
>> so that clock updates for different VCPUs will not be serialized. The
>> effect is probably not visible, though.
>
> Still not clear of the benefits, but this area certainly welcomes
> performance improvements (the global kick is one thing we discussed
> and that should be improved).
This unfortunately does not eliminate the global kick, so there is
likely no performance improvement yet. It simplifies the logic a bit
though.
The change I suggested above is to make pvclock_gtod_sync_lock an rwsem
or, probably better, a seqlock. VCPUs reading ka->use_master_clock,
ka->master_cycle_now, ka->master_kernel_ns can then run concurrently,
with no locked operations in kvm_guest_time_update.
Paolo
--
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
