[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c3e1842b-79c3-634a-3121-938b5160ca4c@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:50:03 +0200
From: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
To: "Hall, Christopher S" <christopher.s.hall@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo <acme@...nel.org>,
Jiri Olsa <jolsa@...hat.com>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Mathieu Poirier <mathieu.poirier@...aro.org>,
Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
Leo Yan <leo.yan@...aro.org>,
"jgross@...e.com" <jgross@...e.com>,
"sdeep@...are.com" <sdeep@...are.com>,
"pv-drivers@...are.com" <pv-drivers@...are.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"seanjc@...gle.com" <seanjc@...gle.com>,
"kys@...rosoft.com" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
"sthemmin@...rosoft.com" <sthemmin@...rosoft.com>,
"virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org"
<virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
"Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com" <Andrew.Cooper3@...rix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 03/11] perf/x86: Add support for TSC in nanoseconds as
a perf event clock
On 08/03/2022 23:06, Hall, Christopher S wrote:
> Adrian Hunter wrote:
>> On 7.3.2022 16.42, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>> On Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 02:36:03PM +0200, Adrian Hunter wrote:
>>>
>>>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
>>>>> index 4420499f7bb4..a1f179ed39bf 100644
>>>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
>>>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/paravirt.c
>>>>> @@ -145,6 +145,15 @@ DEFINE_STATIC_CALL(pv_sched_clock, native_sched_clock);
>>>>>
>>>>> void paravirt_set_sched_clock(u64 (*func)(void))
>>>>> {
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * Anything with ART on promises to have sane TSC, otherwise the whole
>>>>> + * ART thing is useless. In order to make ART useful for guests, we
>>>>> + * should continue to use the TSC. As such, ignore any paravirt
>>>>> + * muckery.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + if (cpu_feature_enabled(X86_FEATURE_ART))
>>>>
>>>> Does not seem to work because the feature X86_FEATURE_ART does not seem to get set.
>>>> Possibly because detect_art() excludes anything running on a hypervisor.
>>>
>>> Simple enough to delete that clause I suppose. Christopher, what is
>>> needed to make that go away? I suppose the guest needs to be aware of
>>> the active TSC scaling parameters to make it work ?
>>
>> There is also not X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC nor values for art_to_tsc_denominator
>> or art_to_tsc_numerator. Also, from the VM's point of view, TSC will jump
>> forwards every VM-Exit / VM-Entry unless the hypervisor changes the offset
>> every VM-Entry, which KVM does not, so it still cannot be used as a stable
>> clocksource.
>
> Translating between ART and the guest TSC can be a difficult problem and ART software
> support is disabled by default in a VM.
>
> There are two major issues translating ART to TSC in a VM:
>
> The range of the TSC scaling field in the VMCS is much larger than the range of values
> that can be represented using CPUID[15H], i.e., it is not possible to communicate this
> to the VM using the current CPUID interface. The range of scaling would need to be
> restricted or another para-virtualized method - preferably OS/hypervisor agnostic - to
> communicate the scaling factor to the guest needs to be invented.
>
> TSC offsetting may also be a problem. The VMCS TSC offset must be discoverable by the
> guest. This can be done via TSC_ADJUST MSR. The offset in the VMCS and the guest
> TSC_ADJUST MSR must always be equivalent, i.e. a write to TSC_ADJUST in the guest
> must be reflected in the VMCS and any changes to the offset in the VMCS must be
> reflected in the TSC_ADJUST MSR. Otherwise a para-virtualized method must
> be invented to communicate an arbitrary VMCS TSC offset to the guest.
>
In my view it is reasonable for perf to support TSC as a perf clock in any case
because:
a) it allows users to work entirely with TSC if they wish
b) other kernel performance / debug facilities like ftrace already support TSC
c) the patches to add TSC support are relatively small and straight-forward
May we have support for TSC as a perf event clock?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists