|
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 1/1] hpet: Act more like real hardware
On 02/27/14 04:20, Jan Beulich wrote: On 26.02.14 at 19:00, Don Slutz <dslutz@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:Currently in 32 bit mode the routine hpet_set_timer() will convert a time in the past to a time in future. This is done by the uint32_t cast of diff. Even without this issue, hpet_tick_to_ns() does not support past times. Real hardware does not support past times. So just do the same thing in 32 bit mode as 64 bit mode.While the change looks valid at the first glance, what I'm missing is an explanation of how the problem that the introduction of this fixed (c/s 13495:e2539ab3580a "[HVM] Fix slow wallclock in x64 Vista") is now being taken care of (or why this is of no concern). That's pretty relevant considering for how long this code has been there without causing (known) problems to anyone.
Ok, digging around (the git version):
commit f545359b1c54f59be9d7c27112a68c51c45b06b5
Date: Thu Jan 18 18:54:28 2007 +0000
[HVM] Fix slow wallclock in x64 Vista. This is due to confusing a
And one that changed how it worked:
commit 73ee2f2e11fcdc27aae4f8caa72d240c4c9ed5ac
Date: Tue Jan 8 16:20:04 2008 +0000
hvm: hpet: Fix overflow when converting to nanoseconds.
Is when a past time was prevented. Which may well have caused x64 Vista to
have wallclock issues.
Next:
commit e1845bbe732b5ad5755f0f3a93fb6ea85919e8a2
Date: Sat May 24 09:27:03 2008 +0100
hvm: Build guest timers on monotonic system time.
Has a chance to do 2 things:
1) Make the diff < 0 very unlikely
2) Fixed x64 Vista wallclock issues (again)
Looking closer at hpet_tick_to_ns() and doing some math. I get:
h->stime_freq = S_TO_NS;
h->hpet_to_ns_scale = ((S_TO_NS * STIME_PER_HPET_TICK) << 10) /
h->stime_freq;
I.E.
h->hpet_to_ns_scale = STIME_PER_HPET_TICK << 10;
And so:
#define hpet_tick_to_ns(h, tick) \
((s_time_t)((((tick) > (h)->hpet_to_ns_limit) ? \
~0ULL : (tick) * (h)->hpet_to_ns_scale) >> 10))
Is really:
#define hpet_tick_to_ns(h, tick) \
((s_time_t)((((tick) > (h)->hpet_to_ns_limit) ? \
(~0ULL >> 10) : (tick) * STIME_PER_HPET_TICK))
And if you change to using a signed multiply most of the time you will be fine. If you
want a complex that is "safer":
#define hpet_tick_to_ns(tick) \
((s_time_t)(tick) >= 0 ? \
(s_time_t)(tick) * (s_time_t)STIME_PER_HPET_TICK >= 0 ? \
(s_time_t)(tick) * (s_time_t)STIME_PER_HPET_TICK : \
(s_time_t)(~0ULL >> 10) : \
(s_time_t)(tick) * (s_time_t)STIME_PER_HPET_TICK < 0 ? \
(s_time_t)(tick) * (s_time_t)STIME_PER_HPET_TICK : \
0)
If the signed multiply overflows in the positive case then the old max is
returned. Note: this can return larger values then the old max.
So I can re-work the patch to use this and still provide past times. Which
path should I go with?
-Don Slutz
Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
![]() |
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |