[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/5] x86/time: implement tsc as clocksource
>>> On 22.03.16 at 21:40, <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 03/22/2016 04:02 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>> On 22.03.16 at 16:51, <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On 03/22/2016 12:46 PM, Jan Beulich wrote: >>>>>>> On 22.03.16 at 13:41, <joao.m.martins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>> I found out one issue in the tsc clocksource initialization path with >>>>> respect to >>>>> the reliability check. This check is running when initializing platform >>>>> timer, >>>>> but not all CPUS are up at that point (init_xen_time()) which means that >>>>> the >>>>> check will always succeed. So for clocksource=tsc I need to defer >>>>> initialization >>>>> to a later point (on verify_tsc_reliability()) and if successful switch >>>>> to that >>>>> clocksource. Unless you disagree, v2 would have this and just requires one >>>>> additional preparatory change prior to this patch. >>>> >>>> Hmm, that's suspicious when thinking about CPU hotplug: What >>>> do you intend to do when a CPU comes online later, failing the >>>> check? >>> Good point, but I am not sure whether that would happen. The initcall >>> verify_tsc_reliability seems to be called only for the boot processor. Or >>> are >>> you saying that it's case that initcalls are called too when hotplugging >>> cpus >>> later on? If that's the case then my suggestion wouldn't work as you point >>> out - >>> or rather without having runtime switching support as you point out below. >> >> Looks like I didn't express myself clearly enough: "failing the check" >> wasn't meant to imply the failure would actually occur, but rather >> that failure would occur if the check was run on that CPU. IOW the >> case of a CPU getting hotplugged which doesn't satisfy the needs >> for selecting TSC as the clock source. > Ah, I see. I believe this wouldn't be an issue with the current rendezvous > mechanism (std_rendezvous), as the delta is computed between local_tsc_stamp > taken in that (hotplugged) CPU in the calibration and the rdtsc() in the > guest > same CPU, even though having CPU0 TSC (master) as system_time. > > However it can be a problem with PVCLOCK_TSC_STABLE_BIT as the hotplugged CPU > could have its TSC drifted, and since setting this flag relies on > synchronization of TSCs we would need to clear the flag enterily. Except that we can't, after guests already got started, validly clear that flag afaics. The only option I see here would be to never set this flag if CPU hotplug is possible - by looking at the hot pluggable CPU count and, if non-zero, perhaps allowing a command line override to indicate no hotplug is intended (it may well be that such is already implicitly available). >>>> So far we don't do runtime switching of the clock source, >>>> and I'm not sure that's a good idea to do when there are running >>>> guests. >>> Totally agree, but I would be proposing to be at initialization phase where >>> there wouldn't be guests running. We would start with HPET, then only >>> switch >>> to >>> TSC if that check has passed (and would happen once). >>> >>> Simpler alternative would be to call init_xen_time after all CPUs are >>> brought up >>> (and would also keep this patch as is), but I am not sure about the >>> repercussions of that. >> >> I don't see how either would help with the hotplug case. > This was in response to what I thought you meant with your earlier question > (which I misunderstood). But my question is still valid I believe. The > reason > for choosing between my suggested approaches is that tsc_check_reliability() > requires all CPUs up so that the check is correctly performed. Sure - it seems quite obvious that all boot time available CPUs should be checked. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |