Date:   Wed, 27 Sep 2017 10:52:29 +0200 (CEST)
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To:     Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
cc:     Denis Plotnikov <dplotnikov@...tuozzo.com>, rkrcmar@...hat.com,
        kvm@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org, mingo@...hat.com,
        hpa@...or.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org,
        rkagan@...tuozzo.com, den@...tuozzo.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 1/6] timekeeper: introduce extended clocksource reading
 callback

On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 26/09/2017 00:00, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >> + * @read_with_stamp:	saves cycles value (got from timekeeper) and cycles
> >> + *			stamp (got from hardware counter value and used by
> >> + *			timekeeper to calculate the cycles value) to
> >> + *			corresponding input pointers return true if cycles
> >> + *			stamp holds real cycles and false if it holds some
> >> + *			time derivative value
> >
> > Neither the changelog nor this comment make any sense. Not to talk about
> > the actual TSC side implementation which does the same as tsc_read() - it
> > actually uses tsc_read() - but stores the same value twice and
> > unconditionally returns true.
> > 
> > Unless I'm missing something important all of this can be achieved with a
> > minimal and actually understandable patch. See below.
> 
> If that is acceptable, that's certainly okay for us too as a start, in
> order to clean up the KVM code.
> 
> *However*, I must once more ask for help understanding
> ktime_get_snapshot, otherwise there is no way that I can start using it
> in kvmclock.
> 
> In particular I'd like to understand the contract of ktime_get_snapshot,
> namely the meaning of the "cycles" field in struct system_time_snapshot.
> 
> Does it have to be system clock cycles, like TSC, or can it be just the
> value of the clock source?  And if the latter, are the users broken,
> because they can receive any random clocksource output in ->cycles?  It
> doesn't help that, for all of the users of ->cycles (which are all
> reached from get_device_system_crosststamp), the code that actually uses
> the member is never called in the current git master.

stamp->cycles is always the raw counter value retrieved via
clock->read(). clock is the current clock source.

> I asked these questions to John in the previous review, but got no
> answer.  My understanding is that get_device_system_crosststamp is
> broken for !tsc clocksource.
>
> Because struct system_counterval_t must have a TSC value, history_begin
> needs to contain a cross-timestamp of the TSC (in ->cycles) and the clock
> (in ->real and ->raw).  And if this cross-timestamp is not available,
> get_device_system_crosststamp needs to know, so that it doesn't use
> history_begin at all.

Forget about TSC. TSC is one particular use case.

What's required here are two clocks which are strictly coupled, i.e. have a
constant frequency ratio and a constant offset. And that is enforced:

                /*
                 * Verify that the clocksource associated with the captured
                 * system counter value is the same as the currently installed
                 * timekeeper clocksource
                 */
                if (tk->tkr_mono.clock != system_counterval.cs)
                        return -ENODEV;

And that's not broken, that merily makes sure that the function CAN provide
valid data and is not trying to correlate stuff which is not coupled.

> Now, such cross-timestamp functionality is exactly what
> "read_with_stamp" provides.

No, it's a hack.

> So, if history_begin _is_ broken, after fixing it (with
> "read_with_stamp" or otherwise) ktime_get_snapshot would provide KVM
> with everything it needs.  If not, I'd be completely off base, and I'd
> have to apologize to Denis for screwing up.

I told you folks before that you are trying to abuse infrastructure which
was designed for a different purpose. Now you're claiming it's broken. It's
not broken, it works perfectly fine for the intended use cases.

It correlates hardware captured timestamps with system time. One particular
use case is high precision PTP.

The network card can capture both PTP time and ART time atomically. ART and
TSC have a constant ratio and constant offset. The cross time stamp
machinery relates that values, which might be outside of the current
timekeeping window, back to CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME.

But there is no requirement that current clocksource is TSC. The
requirement is:

  The hardware reference clock, the one which can be captured atomically
  with device clock (PTP, audio whatever), is the coupled clock of the
  current timekeeping clocksource. Both have a fixed ratio and offset.

That's completely independend of TSC. TSC/ART are a particular hardware
implementation which can use that infrastructure because they fulfil the
requirement.

So please stop these uninformed claims about brokeness and TSC
requirements. Instead please sit down and figure out whether your
particular use case of kvmclock/hyperv clock actually fit into that
functionality, i.e. whether you have

    1) 'device time'
    2) 'system reference time'
    3) 'system time'

where

    #1 and #2 can be captured atomically

    #2 and #3 are coupled clocks with a fixed ratio and offset

If those requirements are fulfilled then you can simply use it as is and it
will give you CLOCK_MONOTONIC and CLOCK_REALTIME for the captured device
time.

If your use case is different and does not fit into that picture then
please write it up clearly what you are trying to achieve and we can
discuss how to make it work w/o adding duct tape hackery.

Thanks,

	tglx

Powered by blists - more mailing lists