[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20181003190500.GA23638@amt.cnet>
Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2018 16:05:04 -0300
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Radim Krcmar <rkrcmar@...hat.com>,
Wanpeng Li <kernellwp@...il.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Matt Rickard <matt@...trans.com.au>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
KY Srinivasan <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 00/11] x86/vdso: Cleanups, simmplifications and CLOCK_TAI
support\
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:00:29PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > >
> > > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> > > implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
> > > another slightly different copy of the same code.
> > >
> > > Especially the extended switch case is problematic as the compiler tends to
> > > generate a jump table which then requires to use retpolines. If jump tables
> > > are disabled it adds yet another conditional to the existing maze.
> > >
> > > This series takes a different approach by consolidating the almost
> > > identical functions into one implementation for high resolution clocks and
> > > one for the coarse grained clock ids by storing the base data for each
> > > clock id in an array which is indexed by the clock id.
> > >
> >
> > I was trying to understand more of the implications of this patch
> > series, and I was again reminded that there is an entire extra copy of
> > the vclock reading code in arch/x86/kvm/x86.c. And the purpose of
> > that code is very, very opaque.
> >
> > Can one of you explain what the code is even doing? From a couple of
> > attempts to read through it, it's a whole bunch of
> > probably-extremely-buggy code that,
>
> Yes, probably.
>
> > drumroll please, tries to atomically read the TSC value and the time. And decide whether the
> > result is "based on the TSC".
>
> I think "based on the TSC" refers to whether TSC clocksource is being
> used.
>
> > And then synthesizes a TSC-to-ns
> > multiplier and shift, based on *something other than the actual
> > multiply and shift used*.
> >
> > IOW, unless I'm totally misunderstanding it, the code digs into the
> > private arch clocksource data intended for the vDSO, uses a poorly
> > maintained copy of the vDSO code to read the time (instead of doing
> > the sane thing and using the kernel interfaces for this), and
> > propagates a totally made up copy to the guest.
>
> I posted kernel interfaces for this, and it was suggested to
> instead write a "in-kernel user of pvclock data".
>
> If you can get kernel interfaces to replace that, go for it. I prefer
> kernel interfaces as well.
And cleanup patches, to make that code look nicer, are also very
welcome!
Powered by blists - more mailing lists