On Tue, Jun 09 2026 at 10:17, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 05, 2026, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 05 2026 at 11:04, Sean Christopherson wrote:
>> But we also should have a check in the TSC init code somewhere which
>> validates that X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC is set when
>> X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ is set. X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ is useless
>> w/o X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC.
>
> Ugh, any objection to punting on this for now? KVM and Xen guests will
> trigger
> TSC_KNOWN_FREQ without CONSTANT_TSC, thanks to commits:
>
> e10f78050323 ("kvmclock: fix TSC calibration for nested guests")
> 898ec52d2ba0 ("x86/xen/time: Set the X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ flag in
> xen_tsc_khz()")
>
> Hyper-V guests might as well? Hyper-V's handling of TSC is weird, even for a
> hypervisor.
Hypervisors are ranked by weirdness? I ranked them by insanity so far.
> Even when the frequency is provided in CPUID by the hypervisor, QEMU at least
> requires a fairly explicit opt-in to advertise CONSTANT_TSC, presumably to try
> to prevent users from shooting themselves in the foot.
Bah. We really should have enforced the dependency when we introduced
KNOWN_FREQ. But that ship has sailed.
Though for correctness sake this should be fixed at some point in the
foreseeable future.
Thanks,
tglx
