Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-152048-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:4601:e00::3 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:4601:e00::3;
Message-ID: <2e908322-faa0-4db7-bc14-f87a9d71f577@intel.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2024 16:53:32 -0700
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] KVM: selftests: Add KVM/PV clock selftest to prove
 timer drift correction
To: David Woodhouse <dwmw2@infradead.org>, Jack Allister
 <jalliste@amazon.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
 Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>, Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>,
 Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
 Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>, Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
 x86@kernel.org, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
 Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>
Cc: Paul Durrant <paul@xen.org>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-doc@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240408220705.7637-1-jalliste@amazon.com>
 <20240408220705.7637-3-jalliste@amazon.com>
 <3664e8ec-1fa1-48c0-a80d-546b7f6cd671@intel.com>
 <FABCFBD0-4B76-4662-9F7B-7E1A856BBBB6@infradead.org>
Content-Language: en-US
From: "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com>
In-Reply-To: <FABCFBD0-4B76-4662-9F7B-7E1A856BBBB6@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


On 4/19/2024 12:34 PM, David Woodhouse wrote:
> On 19 April 2024 18:13:16 BST, "Chen, Zide" <zide.chen@intel.com> wrote:
>> I'm wondering what's the underling theory that we definitely can achieve
>> ±1ns accuracy? I tested it on a Sapphire Rapids @2100MHz TSC frequency,
>> and I can see delta_corrected=2 in ~2% cases.
> 
> Hm. Thanks for testing!
> 
> So the KVM clock is based on the guest TSC. Given a delta between the guest TSC T and some reference point in time R, the KVM clock is expressed as a(T-R)+r, where little r is the value of the KVM clock when the guest TSC was R, and (a) is the rate of the guest TSC.
> 
> When set the clock with KVM_SET_CLOCK_GUEST, we are changing the values of R and r to a new point in time. Call the new ones Q and q respectively.
> 
> But we calculate precisely (within 1ns at least) what the KVM clock would have been with the *old* formula, and adjust our new offset (q) so that at our new reference TSC value Q, the formulae give exactly the same result.
> 
> And because the *rates* are the same, they should continue to give the same results, ±1ns.
> 
> Or such *was* my theory, at least. 

Thanks for the explanation.

> 
> Would be interesting to see it disproven with actual numbers for the old+new pvclock structs, so I can understand where the logic goes wrong.
> 
> Were you using frequency scaling?

I can see similar ~2% failure ratio w/ or w/o commenting out
configure_scaled_tsc().