In Xen, we guarantee that the pv clock record will only ever be updated
by the current cpu, so there will never be any cross-cpu barrier or
synchronization issues to consider, nor any chance a vcpu will see its
own clock record in a partially updated state.
I notice the current kvm implementation is the same.
However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
$0, (%esp)").
If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
just check for (src->version != dst->version).
Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
doing cross-cpu time updates?
J
Hi,
> However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
> over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
> strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
> $0, (%esp)").
>
> If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
> be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
> just check for (src->version != dst->version).
>
> Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
> doing cross-cpu time updates?
Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
will ever happen. IMHO it is fine to change that.
cheers,
Gerd
--
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/
Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>> However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
>> over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
>> strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
>> $0, (%esp)").
>>
>> If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
>> be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
>> just check for (src->version != dst->version).
>>
>> Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
>> doing cross-cpu time updates?
>>
>
> Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
> will ever happen. IMHO it is fine to change that.
>
>
I agree. And if we ever feel the need, we can allocate a feature bit
for it.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
>> over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
>> strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
>> $0, (%esp)").
>>
>> If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
>> be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
>> just check for (src->version != dst->version).
>>
>> Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
>> doing cross-cpu time updates?
>
> Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
> will ever happen. IMHO it is fine to change that.
Okay for guest vcpu, but what about physical cpus?
IIRC, the checks are there, and so strict, to account for the
possiblity of the vcpu to be migrated to another cpu in the middle of
the
clock reading.
>
> cheers,
> Gerd
>
> --
> http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/
>
--
Glauber Costa.
"Free as in Freedom"
http://glommer.net
"The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."
Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>>> However, the pvclock_clocksource_read() implementation is
>>> over-engineered, because it checks for an odd version and uses very
>>> strong rmb() barriers (which generates either an "lfence" or "lock add
>>> $0, (%esp)").
>>>
>>> If we're happy to guarantee as an ABI issue that the record will never
>>> be updated cross-cpu, then we can make the barriers simply barrier() and
>>> just check for (src->version != dst->version).
>>>
>>> Is that OK with you, or do you want to leave open the possibility of
>>> doing cross-cpu time updates?
>>>
>> Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
>> will ever happen. IMHO it is fine to change that.
>>
>
> Okay for guest vcpu, but what about physical cpus?
>
>
> IIRC, the checks are there, and so strict, to account for the
> possiblity of the vcpu to be migrated to another cpu in the middle of
> the
>
Migration implies an smp barrier (but not a compiler barrier, of
course). As to the the version number oddness check, I don't see how it
can be necessary.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
Glauber Costa wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 11, 2008 at 4:08 AM, Gerd Hoffmann <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Due to the TSC being involved here I don't expect cross-cpu time updates
>> will ever happen. IMHO it is fine to change that.
>
> Okay for guest vcpu, but what about physical cpus?
>
> IIRC, the checks are there, and so strict, to account for the
> possiblity of the vcpu to be migrated to another cpu in the middle of
> the
> clock reading.
This is about the check in pvclock_get_time_values() that it got a
consistent snapshot. Dropping that is fine.
pvclock_clocksource_read() will still notice when being migrated to
another pcpu in the middle of the clock reading.
cheers,
Gerd
--
http://kraxel.fedorapeople.org/xenner/
Glauber Costa wrote:
> Okay for guest vcpu, but what about physical cpus?
>
> IIRC, the checks are there, and so strict, to account for the
> possiblity of the vcpu to be migrated to another cpu in the middle of
> the
> clock reading.
>
That's fine. As part of rescheduling a vcpu on a new pcpu, the clock
record will be updated with the new cpu's parameters, but that update
will be complete by the time the vcpu gets rescheduled. The version
check and loop still needs to be there, but it will never see an
inconsistent (partially updated) clock record.
J