[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALCETrWqze2mifOdFc0GJYHtHGKiKX2Zdi5Kz87OyUogbqD15w@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Oct 2018 15:28:05 -0700
From: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>
To: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
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>,
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>,
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 Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:29 PM Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
> > I've come up with this patch:
> >
> > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/vdso-tglx&id=14fd71e12b1c4492a06f368f75041f263e6862bf
> >
> > Is it correct, or am I missing some subtlety?
>
> The master clock, when initialized, has a pair
>
> masterclockvalues=(TSC value, time-of-day data).
>
> When updating the guest clock, we only update relative to (TSC value)
> that was read on masterclock initialization.
I don't see the problem. The masterclock data is updated here:
host_tsc_clocksource = kvm_get_time_and_clockread(
&ka->master_kernel_ns,
&ka->master_cycle_now);
kvm_get_time_and_clockread() gets those values from
do_monotonic_boot(), which, barring bugs, should cause
get_kvmclock_ns() to return exactly the same thing as
ktime_get_boot_ns() + ka->kvmclock_offset, albeit in a rather
roundabout manner.
So what am I missing? Is there actually something wrong with my patch?
>
> See the following comment on x86.c:
I read that comment, and it's not obvious to me how it's related.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists