Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86/vpt: update last_guest_time with cmpxchg and drop pl_time_lock

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 20.02.2020 16:37, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
> On 20/02/2020 08:27, Jan Beulich wrote:
>> On 19.02.2020 19:52, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>> On 19/02/2020 07:48, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 20.12.2019 22:39, Igor Druzhinin wrote:
>>>>> @@ -38,24 +37,22 @@ void hvm_init_guest_time(struct domain *d)
>>>>>  uint64_t hvm_get_guest_time_fixed(const struct vcpu *v, uint64_t at_tsc)
>>>>>  {
>>>>>      struct pl_time *pl = v->domain->arch.hvm.pl_time;
>>>>> -    u64 now;
>>>>> +    s_time_t old, new, now = get_s_time_fixed(at_tsc) + pl->stime_offset;
>>>>>  
>>>>>      /* Called from device models shared with PV guests. Be careful. */
>>>>>      ASSERT(is_hvm_vcpu(v));
>>>>>  
>>>>> -    spin_lock(&pl->pl_time_lock);
>>>>> -    now = get_s_time_fixed(at_tsc) + pl->stime_offset;
>>>>> -
>>>>>      if ( !at_tsc )
>>>>>      {
>>>>> -        if ( (int64_t)(now - pl->last_guest_time) > 0 )
>>>>> -            pl->last_guest_time = now;
>>>>> -        else
>>>>> -            now = ++pl->last_guest_time;
>>>>> +        do {
>>>>> +            old = pl->last_guest_time;
>>>>> +            new = now > pl->last_guest_time ? now : old + 1;
>>>>> +        } while ( cmpxchg(&pl->last_guest_time, old, new) != old );
>>>>
>>>> I wonder whether you wouldn't better re-invoke get_s_time() in
>>>> case you need to retry here. See how the function previously
>>>> was called only after the lock was already acquired.
>>>
>>> If there is a concurrent writer, wouldn't it just update pl->last_guest_time
>>> with the new get_s_time() and then we subsequently would just use the new
>>> time on retry?
>>
>> Yes, it would, but the latency until the retry actually occurs
>> is unknown (in particular if Xen itself runs virtualized). I.e.
>> in the at_tsc == 0 case I think the value would better be
>> re-calculated on every iteration.
> 
> Why does it need to be recalculated if a concurrent writer did this
> for us already anyway and (get_s_time_fixed(at_tsc) + pl->stime_offset)
> value is common for all of vCPUs? Yes, it might reduce jitter slightly
> but overall latency could come from any point (especially in case of
> rinning virtualized) and it's important just to preserve invariant that
> the value is monotonic across vCPUs.

I'm afraid I don't follow: If we rely on remote CPUs updating
pl->last_guest_time, then what we'd return is whatever was put
there plus one. Whereas the correct value might be dozens of
clocks further ahead.

>> Anther thing I notice only now are the multiple reads of
>> pl->last_guest_time. Wouldn't you better do
>>
>>         do {
>>             old = ACCESS_ONCE(pl->last_guest_time);
>>             new = now > old ? now : old + 1;
>>         } while ( cmpxchg(&pl->last_guest_time, old, new) != old );
>>
>> ?
> 
> Fair enough, although even reading it multiple times wouldn't cause
> any harm as any inconsistency would be resolved by cmpxchg op.

Afaics "new", if calculated from a value latched _earlier_
than "old", could cause time to actually move backwards. Reads
can be re-ordered, after all.

> I'd
> prefer to make it in a separate commit to unify it with pv_soft_rdtsc().

I'd be fine if you changed pv_soft_rdtsc() first, and then
made the code here match. But I don't think the code should be
introduced in other than its (for the time being) final shape.

Jan

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel