Re: [Xen-devel] Re: [PATCH 3/5] x86/pvclock: add vsyscall implementation

[Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 10/12/2009 08:20 PM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> On 10/10/09 11:10, Avi Kivity wrote:
>    
> > On 10/10/2009 02:24 AM, Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote:
> >      
> > > On 10/07/09 03:25, Avi Kivity wrote:
> > >
> > >        
> > > > def try_pvclock_vtime():
> > > >     tsc, p0 = rdtscp()
> > > >     v0 = pvclock[p0].version
> > > >     tsc, p = rdtscp()
> > > >     t = pvclock_time(pvclock[p], tsc)
> > > >     if p != p0 or pvclock[p].version != v0:
> > > >        raise Exception("Processor or timebased change under our feet")
> > > >     return t
> > > >          
> There's a second problem:  If the time_info gets updated between the
> first rdtscp and the first version fetch, then we won't have a
> consistent tsc,time_info pair.  You could check if tsc_timestamp is>
> tsc, but that won't necessarily work on save/restore/migrate.
>    
Good catch.  Doesn't that invalidate rdtscp based vgettimeofday on 
non-virt as well (assuming p == cpu)?
> I suppose that works if you assume that:
>
>     1. every task->vcpu migration is associated with a hv/guest context
>        switch, and
>     2. every hv/guest context switch is a write barrier
>
> I guess 2 is a given, but I can at least imagine cases where 1 might not
> be true.  Maybe.  It all seems very subtle.
>    
What is 1 exactly?  task switching to another vcpu?  that doesn't incur 
hypervisor involvement.  vcpu moving to another cpu?  That does.
> And I don't really see a gain.  You avoid maintaining a second version
> number, but at the cost of two rdtscps.  In my measurements, the whole
> vsyscall takes around 100ns to run, and a single rdtsc takes about 30,
> so 30% of total.  Unlike rdtsc, rdtscp is documented as being ordered in
> the instruction stream, and so will take at least as long; two of them
> will completely blow the vsyscall execution time.
>    
I agree, let's stick with the rdtscpless implementation.

--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel