lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2016]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH] time,virt: resync steal time when guest & host lose sync
From
Date
On Fri, 2016-08-12 at 18:33 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> On 10/08/2016 18:52, Rik van Riel wrote:
> > Paolo, what is your opinion on this issue?
> >
> > I can think of all kinds of ways in which guest and host might lose
> > sync with steal time, from uninitialized values at boot, to guest
> > pause, followed by save to disk, and reload, to live migration,
> > to...
>
> Guest and host _cannot_ lose sync because there is only one copy of
> the
> values.  When the host wants to update the steal time value it just
> reads the old value and writes the new value.  There cannot be a
> guest
> pause, save to disk, live migration or whatever between these two
> steps
> (and uninitialized values at boot are not how percpu values work).

There is one copy of paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id()),
but what keeps it in sync with this_rq()->prev_steal_time?

Is it something simple like them both being zeroed out when
the structures are first allocated at boot time?

> Your hypothesis of lost ticks makes the most sense to me, and then
> changing the argument to ULONG_MAX is the right thing to do.

I sent out a patch that just removes the parameter instead,
and documents why steal_account_process_time can encounter
more elapsed time than the calling functions expected.

--

All Rights Reversed.[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature]
\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2016-09-17 09:56    [W:0.067 / U:0.236 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site