I believe this fixes the root cause of the kvmclock warp. It's quite a plausible phenomenon, and explains why it was so easy to produce.

Currently it depends on some other patches; I can send a whole patchset, but with all the patch activity, it isn't clear what has been applied and to what trees. Where have Glauber's recent patches been applied?

I am looking for comments if this is a reasonably good explanation and fix for the problem.

I realize I messed up the overshoot calculation, it is not converted to nsec, but the debug stats are just for debugging.

Thanks,

Zach
commit 24e1f31a4cdb43a8e5cab6cfb95d710c7c7bf18a
Author: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>
Date:   Fri Feb 26 15:13:31 2010 -1000

    Fix a possible backwards warp of kvmclock
    
    Kernel time, which advances in discrete steps may progress much slower
    than TSC.  As a result, when kvmclock is adjusted to a new base, the
    apparent time to the guest, which runs at a much higher, nsec scaled
    rate based on the current TSC, may have already been observed to have
    a larger value (kernel_ns + scaled tsc) than the value to which we are
    setting it (kernel_ns + 0).
    
    We must instead compute the clock as potentially observed by the guest
    for kernel_ns to make sure it does not go backwards.
    
    Signed-off-by: Zachary Amsden <[email protected]>

diff --git a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
index 83df4db..ba765fa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
+++ b/arch/x86/include/asm/kvm_host.h
@@ -453,6 +453,8 @@ struct kvm_vcpu_stat {
        u32 hypercalls;
        u32 irq_injections;
        u32 nmi_injections;
+       u32 tsc_overshoot;
+       u32 tsc_ahead;
 };
 
 struct kvm_x86_ops {
diff --git a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
index bb44f9e..2bf7e86 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kvm/x86.c
@@ -134,6 +134,8 @@ struct kvm_stats_debugfs_item debugfs_entries[] = {
        { "insn_emulation_fail", VCPU_STAT(insn_emulation_fail) },
        { "irq_injections", VCPU_STAT(irq_injections) },
        { "nmi_injections", VCPU_STAT(nmi_injections) },
+       { "tsc_overshoot", VCPU_STAT(tsc_overshoot) },
+       { "tsc_ahead", VCPU_STAT(tsc_ahead) },
        { "mmu_shadow_zapped", VM_STAT(mmu_shadow_zapped) },
        { "mmu_pte_write", VM_STAT(mmu_pte_write) },
        { "mmu_pte_updated", VM_STAT(mmu_pte_updated) },
@@ -849,35 +851,80 @@ static int kvm_recompute_guest_time(struct kvm_vcpu *v)
        struct kvm_vcpu_arch *vcpu = &v->arch;
        void *shared_kaddr;
        unsigned long this_tsc_khz;
+       s64 kernel_ns, delta;
+       u64 tsc_timestamp;
+       bool upscale;
 
        if ((!vcpu->time_page))
                return 0;
 
-       this_tsc_khz = get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
-       put_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
+       /*
+        * The protection we require is simple: we must not be preempted from
+        * the CPU between our read of the TSC khz and our read of the TSC.
+        * Interrupt protection is not strictly required, but it does result in
+        * greater accuracy for the TSC / kernel_ns measurement.
+        */
+       local_irq_save(flags);
+       this_tsc_khz = __get_cpu_var(cpu_tsc_khz);
+       kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC, &tsc_timestamp);
+       ktime_get_ts(&ts);
+       monotonic_to_bootbased(&ts);
+       kernel_ns = timespec_to_ns(&ts);
+       local_irq_restore(flags);
+
        if (unlikely(this_tsc_khz == 0)) {
                kvm_request_guest_time_update(v);
                return 1;
        }
 
+       /*
+        * Time as measured by the TSC may go backwards when resetting the base
+        * tsc_timestamp.  The reason for this is that the TSC resolution is
+        * higher than the resolution of the other clock scales.  Thus, many
+        * possible measurments of the TSC correspond to one measurement of any
+        * other clock, and so a spread of values is possible.  This is not a
+        * problem for the computation of the nanosecond clock; with TSC rates
+        * around 1GHZ, there can only be a few cycles which correspond to one
+        * nanosecond value, and any path through this code will inevitably
+        * take longer than that.  However, with the kernel_ns value itself,
+        * the precision may be much lower, down to HZ granularity.  If the
+        * first sampling of TSC against kernel_ns ends in the low part of the
+        * range, and the second in the high end of the range, we can get:
+        *
+        * (TSC - offset_low) * S + kns_old > (TSC - offset_high) * S + kns_new
+        *
+        * As the sampling errors potentially range in the thousands of cycles,
+        * it is possible such a time value has already been observed by the
+        * guest.  To protect against this, we must compute the system time as
+        * observed by the guest and ensure the new system time is greater.
+        */
+       delta = native_read_tsc() - vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp;
+       delta = pvclock_scale_delta(delta, vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_to_system_mul,
+                                   vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_shift);
+       delta += vcpu->hv_clock.system_time;
+
        if (unlikely(vcpu->hw_tsc_khz != this_tsc_khz)) {
+               upscale = this_tsc_khz > vcpu->hw_tsc_khz;
                kvm_get_time_scale(NSEC_PER_SEC / 1000, this_tsc_khz,
                                   &vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_shift,
                                   &vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_to_system_mul);
                vcpu->hw_tsc_khz = this_tsc_khz;
        }
 
-       /* Keep irq disabled to prevent changes to the clock */
-       local_irq_save(flags);
-       kvm_get_msr(v, MSR_IA32_TSC, &vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp);
-       ktime_get_ts(&ts);
-       monotonic_to_bootbased(&ts);
-       local_irq_restore(flags);
+       if (delta > kernel_ns) {
+               s64 overshoot = delta - kernel_ns;
+               ++v->stat.tsc_ahead;
+               if (upscale)
+                       overshoot = overshoot * 9 / 10;
+               if (overshoot > 1000ULL * this_tsc_khz / HZ) {
+                       ++v->stat.tsc_overshoot;
+               }
+               kernel_ns = delta;
+       }
 
        /* With all the info we got, fill in the values */
-
-       vcpu->hv_clock.system_time = ts.tv_nsec +
-                                    (NSEC_PER_SEC * (u64)ts.tv_sec) + 
v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
+       vcpu->hv_clock.tsc_timestamp = tsc_timestamp;
+       vcpu->hv_clock.system_time = kernel_ns + v->kvm->arch.kvmclock_offset;
 
        /*
         * The interface expects us to write an even number signaling that the

Reply via email to