Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: clear guest TSC on reset

[Marcelo Tosatti]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 02:40:00PM -0200, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 05, 2013 at 05:02:02PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > Il 05/12/2013 16:42, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao ha scritto:
> > > (2013/12/05 22:53), Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >> Il 05/12/2013 14:15, Fernando Luis Vazquez Cao ha scritto:
> > >>>          /*
> > >>>           * KVM is yet unable to synchronize TSC values of multiple 
> > >>> VCPUs on
> > >>>           * writeback. Until this is fixed, we only write the offset to 
> > >>> SMP
> > >>>           * guests after migration, desynchronizing the VCPUs, but 
> > >>> avoiding
> > >>>           * huge jump-backs that would occur without any writeback at 
> > >>> all.
> > >>>           */
> > >>> -        if (smp_cpus == 1 || env->tsc != 0) {
> > >>> +        if (smp_cpus == 1 || env->tsc != 0 || level == 
> > >>> KVM_PUT_RESET_STATE) {
> > >>>              kvm_msr_entry_set(&msrs[n++], MSR_IA32_TSC, env->tsc);
> > >>>          }
> > >> This is still a bit ugly, and desynchronizes the VCPUs on reset.
> > > 
> > > I agree it is a bit ugly, but in my testing QEMU seemed to loop over all
> > > the VCPUS fast enough for the kernel side kvm_write_tsc() to do a
> > > reasonable job of matching the offsets (the Linux guest did not mark
> > > the TSC unstable due to the TSCs being unsynchronized). Am I missing
> > > something?
> > 
> > No, probably not.
> > 
> > > I understand the benefits of what you are proposing but, since it is
> > > wider is scope and it would be more difficult to backport, I would
> > > prefer to implement it as a follow-up patch, unless you think that
> > > the current patch as a standalone fix does more harm than good.
> > 
> > It does some harm in that it introduces a case where KVM_PUT_RESET_STATE
> > restores something, but KVM_PUT_FULL_STATE doesn't.
> > 
> > If it really usually works, there shouldn't be a need for this "if"
> > statement at all.
> > 
> > Marcelo, what do you think?
> > 
> > Paolo
> 
> Its OK to drop it, provided the following is tested on SMP guests:
> 
> 1. initialization.
> 2. reboot.
> 3. migration.
> 
> With both stable and unstable TSC hosts (use wrmsr tool to write TSC on
> a given host CPU, to make it an unstable TSC host). (A=rdmsr ; sleep 1s;
> wrmsr A).
> 
> To make sure the code is not securing against a kvm_write_tsc
> cornercase.

The TSCs should start synchronized, and remain synchronized across
reboot and migration for stable TSC host case.

It is not necessary to test the unstable TSC host case.