[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] target/arm/kvm: Provide an option to adjust virtual t

From: Andrew Jones
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] target/arm/kvm: Provide an option to adjust virtual time
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2019 16:53:27 +0100

On Fri, Dec 06, 2019 at 03:22:58PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Oct 2019 at 15:34, Andrew Jones <address@hidden> wrote:
> >
> > v2:
> >  - move from RFC status to v1
> >  - put kvm_arm_vm_state_change() in kvm.c to share among kvm32.c and kvm64.c
> >  - add r-b's from Richard
> >
> >
> > This series is inspired by a series[1] posted by Bijan Mottahedeh about
> > a year ago.  The problem described in the cover letter of [1] is easily
> > reproducible and some users would like to have the option to avoid it.
> > However the solution, which is to adjust the virtual counter offset each
> > time the VM transitions to the running state, introduces a different
> > problem, which is that the virtual and physical counters diverge.  As
> > described in the cover letter of [1] this divergence is easily observed
> > when comparing the output of `date` and `hwclock` after suspending the
> > guest, waiting a while, and then resuming it.  Because this different
> > problem may actually be worse for some users, unlike [1], the series
> > posted here makes the virtual counter offset adjustment optional and not
> > even enabled by default.  Besides the adjustment being optional, this
> > series approaches the needed changes differently to apply them in more
> > appropriate locations.  Finally, unlike [1], this series doesn't attempt
> > to measure "pause time" itself.  Simply using QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL, which
> > only ticks when the VM is not stopped, is sufficient.
> So I guess my overall question is "what is the x86 solution to
> this problem, and why is this all arm-specific?" It would also

x86 adjusts the counter offset by default, and I don't think there's any
way to turn that behavior off. I think it's too late to follow that
default for arm, but this series provides a way to opt into the same

> be helpful to know how it fits into all the other proposals regarding
> time in VMs.

I've been lightly following the other stuff, but haven't yet seen any

BTW, this series needs to be rebased and reposted. I've been waiting for
4.2 though.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]