On 11/12/2015 22:57, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> I'm still not seeing the issue.
> The formula is:
> (((rdtsc - pvti->tsc_timestamp) * pvti->tsc_to_system_mul) >>
> pvti->tsc_shift) + pvti->system_time
> Obviously, if you reset pvti->tsc_timestamp to the current tsc value
> after suspend/resume, you would also need to update system_time.
> I don't see what this has to do with suspend/resume or with whether
> the effective scale factor is greater than or less than one.  The only
> suspend/resume interaction I can see is that, if the host allows the
> guest-observed TSC value to jump (which is arguably a bug, what that's
> not important here), it needs to update pvti before resuming the
> guest.

Which is not an issue, since freezing obviously gets all CPUs out of
guest mode.

Marcelo, can you provide an example with made-up values for tsc and pvti?

> Can you clarify concretely what goes wrong here?
> (I'm also at a bit of a loss as to why this needs both system_time and
> tsc_timestamp.  They're redundant in the sense that you could set
> tsc_timestamp to zero and subtract (tsc_timestamp * tsc_to_system_mul) >>
> tsc_shift to system_time without changing the result of the
> calculation.)

You would have to ensure that all elements of pvti are rounded correctly
whenever the base TSC is updated.  Doable, but it does seem simpler to
keep subtract-TSC and add-nanoseconds separate.

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