On 09/12/2015 22:49, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 09/12/2015 22:10, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> Can we please stop making kvmclock more complex?  It's a beast right
>>> now, and not in a good way.  It's far too tangled with the vclock
>>> machinery on both the host and guest sides, the pvclock stuff is not
>>> well thought out (even in principle in an ABI sense), and it's never
>>> been clear to my what problem exactly the kvmclock stuff is supposed
>>> to solve.
>> It's supposed to solve the problem that:
>> - not all hosts have a working TSC
> Fine, but we don't need any vdso integration for that.

Well, you still want a fast time source.  That was a given. :)

>> - even if they all do, virtual machines can be migrated (or
>> saved/restored) to a host with a different TSC frequency
>> - any MMIO- or PIO-based mechanism to access the current time is orders
>> of magnitude slower than the TSC and less precise too.
> Yup.  But TSC by itself gets that benefit, too.

Yes, the problem is if you want to solve all three of them.  The first
two are solved by the ACPI PM timer with a decent resolution (70
ns---much faster anyway than an I/O port access).  The third is solved
by TSC.  To solve all three, you need kvmclock.

>>> I'm somewhat tempted to suggest that we delete kvmclock entirely and
>>> start over.  A correctly functioning KVM guest using TSC (i.e.
>>> ignoring kvmclock entirely) seems to work rather more reliably and
>>> considerably faster than a kvmclock guest.
>> If all your hosts have a working TSC and you don't do migration or
>> save/restore, that's a valid configuration.  It's not a good default,
>> however.
> Er?
> kvmclock is still really quite slow and buggy.

Unless it takes 3-4000 clock cycles for a gettimeofday, which it
shouldn't even with vdso disabled, it's definitely not slower than PIO.

> And the patch I identified is definitely a problem here:
> [  136.131241] KVM: disabling fast timing permanently due to inability
> to recover from suspend
> I got that on the host with this whitespace-damaged patch:
>         if (backwards_tsc) {
>                 u64 delta_cyc = max_tsc - local_tsc;
> +               if (!backwards_tsc_observed)
> +                       pr_warn("KVM: disabling fast timing
> permanently due to inability to recover from suspend\n");
> when I suspended and resumed.
> Can anyone explain what problem
> 16a9602158861687c78b6de6dc6a79e6e8a9136f is supposed to solve?  On
> brief inspection, it just seems to be incorrect.  Shouldn't KVM's
> normal TSC logic handle that case right?  After all, all vcpus should
> be paused when we resume from suspend.  At worst, we should just need
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_CLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu) on all vcpus.  (Actually,
> shouldn't we do that regardless of which way the TSC jumped on
> suspend/resume?  After all, the jTSC-to-wall-clock offset is quite
> likely to change except on the very small handful of CPUs (if any)
> that keep the TSC running in S3 and hibernate.

I don't recall the details of that patch, so Marcelo will have to answer
this, or Alex too since he chimed in the original thread.  At least it
should be made conditional on the existence of a VM at suspend time (and
the master clock stuff should be made per VM, as I suggested at

It would indeed be great if the master clock could be dropped.  But I'm
definitely missing some of the subtle details. :(

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to