Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:12:51 +0200 | From | Avi Kivity <> | Subject | Re: [kvm-devel] [PATCH 2/3] kvmclock - the host part. |
| |
Dong, Eddie wrote: >>> >>> After thinking for a little while, you are theoretically right. >>> In the current state, we could even be preempted between all >>> operations ;-) Maybe after avi's suggestion of moving the call to it >>> it will end up in a preempt safe region, but anyway, it's safer to >>> add the preempt markers here. I'll put it in next version, thanks >>> >>> >>> >> Well, you can't kvm_write_guest() with preemption enabled. >> >> preempt notifiers to the rescue! We have a callout during preemption, >> so you can just zero out a flag there, and when we're scheduled again >> retry the whole thing. >> >> > > The preemption issue is within following code which need to be done in a > short enough period. > > + kvm_get_msr(vcpu, MSR_IA32_TIME_STAMP_COUNTER, > + &vcpu->hv_clock.last_tsc); > + > + ktime_get_ts(&ts); > + vcpu->hv_clock.now_ns = ts.tv_nsec + (NSEC_PER_SEC * > (u64)ts.tv_sec); > + vcpu->hv_clock.wc_sec = get_seconds(); > > I am even thinking we have to disable interrupt between these lines, > otherwise > guest wall clock may see backward time source when calculating the > delta TSC since last vcpu->hv_clock.now_ns update. >
That's true. While we do need to handle vcpu migration and descheduling, the code sequence you note needs to be as atomic as possible.
-- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |