[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <878tqj6l8l.fsf@vitty.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 15:30:18 +0100
From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: devel@...uxdriverproject.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@...rosoft.com>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Alex Ng <alexng@...rosoft.com>,
Stephen Hemminger <stephen@...workplumber.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/4] hv_util: adjust system time smoothly
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> writes:
> On Wed, 4 Jan 2017, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
>> Changes since v1:
>> - do do_settimeofday64() when ICTIMESYNCFLAG_SYNC flag is present in the
>> request (Alex Ng)
>> - add pr_debug() for the case when do_adjtimex() fails (Alex Ng)
>>
>> Original description:
>>
>> With TimeSync version 4 protocol support we started updating system time
>> continuously through the whole lifetime of Hyper-V guests. Every 5 seconds
>> there is a time sample from the host which triggers do_settimeofday[64]().
>> While the time from the host is very accurate such adjustments may cause
>> issues:
>> - Time is jumping forward and backward, some applications may misbehave.
>> - In case an NTP client is run in parallel things may go south, e.g. when
>> an NTP client tries to adjust tick/frequency with ADJ_TICK/ADJ_FREQUENCY
>> the Hyper-V module will not see this changes and time will oscillate and
>> never converge.
>> - Systemd starts annoying you by printing "Time has been changed" every 5
>> seconds to the system log.
>>
>> With this series I suggest to use do_adjtimex() to adjust time. My tests
>> show that such method gives equally good time convergence but avoids all
>> the drawbacks described above.
>
> To be honest, I think all of this is just tinkering.
>
Thank you for your comments, Thomas,
> 1) do_adjtimex() is assuming that there is a single client connected which
> is responsible for the updates. So I seriously doubt that a NTP client
> running in the guest will cooperate nicely with that timesync magic
> under all circumstances.
True, as Stephen suggested we'll probably need a way to inform (or
block) the second NTP client about the ongoing timesync.
>
> 2) There is still the possibility to force do_settimeofday() calls which
> will upset NTP clients and have other side effects.
>
> Why is this call necessary at all? Just because it's in some spec?
ICTIMESYNCFLAG_SYNC flag, demanding us to do so, is only set on the
first packet (when our VM boots) and after suspend/resume/migration
events. In these cases guest's time can be off by minutes/hours and
do_settimeofday() is probably justified.
>
> 3) What happens if you have a PTP capable network card mapped into your
> guest and the guest uses PTP for time synchronization? The outcome is
> predictible: CRAP.
>
> I can see the value for a host wide time synchronization, but please use
> mechanisms which do not interfere with the rest of the time eco system in
> Linux.
>
> The timesync thing happens periodically every 5 seconds, which you can feed
> nicely into the PPS subsystem and then the guest side NTP daemon can
> utilize it (or not).
>
My understanding is that we have no guarantees from the host that these
messages are sent every 5 seconds and even when they are the interval is
not very precise. We can probably create a 'fake' pps signal out of
these messages (e.g. these messages will just be adjusting the frequency
of the signal. I can play with such approach if you think this is the
way to go.
--
Vitaly
Powered by blists - more mailing lists