thr3ads.net - Xen devel - [Xen-devel] Isolation and time [Jun 2008]

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Dan Magenheimer

2008-Jun-13 17:53 UTC

[Xen-devel] Isolation and time

(Moving from offlist discussion.)

I''m interested in opinions...  Assume there are four
single vcpu domains A, B, C, D, running on a 2-CPU
physical machine.  We wish to test for time skew on
domain A.  Assuming B, C, and D are all running
some workload that attempts to fully saturate the
(single) cpu.

1) Should the affect on domain A be essentially the
   same regardless of what load (e.g., compile,
   lmbench, or just "while(1);") is running in
   B, C, and D?
2) Should "xm sched-credit -d A -c 50" have the
   same result (e.g. no other domains need be run)?

If the load on other domains can affect time skew on
domain A, this raises isolation questions.  And
it makes time skew testing much harder (What loads
and real-customer situations can cause more skew?)

If the load on other domains canNOT affect time skew
on domain A, testing for time skew becomes a lot
easier.  (Use sched-credit instead of launching multiple
domains.)

Comments?  My preliminary testing has been inconclusive.

Dan

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@virtualiron.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:14 PM
To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com
Cc: Dave Winchell
Subject: RE: xen hpet patch


Dan,

Usually forcing "out-of-context" is more stressful.
I think doing it with real domains under load is more realistic.
However, the scheduling thing may be equivalent - I just haven''t
looked into it or thought about it.

thanks,
Dave


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@oracle.com]
Sent: Thu 6/12/2008 5:13 PM
To: Dave Winchell
Subject: RE: xen hpet patch

One more thought while waiting for compile and reboot:

Am I right that all of the policies are correcting for when
a domain "A" is out-of-context?  There''s nothing in any other
domain "B" that can account for any timer loss/gain in domain
"A".  The only reason we are running other domains is to ensure
that domain "A" is sometimes out-of-context, and the more
it is out-of-context, the more likely we will observe
a problem, correct?

If this is true, it doesn''t matter what workload is run
in the non-A domains... as long as it is loading the
CPU(s), thus ensuring that domain A is sometimes not
scheduled on any CPU.

And if all this is true, we may not need to run other
domains at all... running "xm sched-credit -d A -c 50"
should result in domain A being out-of-context at least
half the time.

Dan>

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Roger Cruz

2008-Jun-13 18:49 UTC

head link

[Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

<<Roger Cruz.vcf>> Hello fellow developers,

I ran across a curious observation this week when trying to analyze the
Debian 4.0 VM kernel''s printk timestamps against walltime.  It looks as
if the kernel''s timestamps are running slow.

On a reference debian 4.0 VM (created from Citrix templates), I ran the
following script after booting the OS with the "time" option in the
grub
boot line. 

You can see that the kernel time in the brackets (host up time in
seconds) should have given us a difference of 3600 seconds when ran over
an hr period. I, however, got 3592.770286, a slip of  7+ seconds.  I''ve
ran a similar experiment and over the course of 12hrs, the kernel
timestamps lose 97 seconds!

So unless I''m misunderstanding the printk times, the problem is either
with the way the Linux OS converts TSC cycles to seconds not being very
accurate  OR how the hypervisor feeds the VM-ified TSC counts to the
guest VM. 

Note that I''m sure the walltime was correct as I could monitor the
printed walltime against an atomic clock in another window and it always
matched (within the precision of my eyes moving back and forth, of
course).

Have any of you seen something similar or have an explanation?

grub line
title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013
root (hd0,0)
kernel /boot/vmlinuz-xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013 root=/dev/xvda1 ro
time
savedefault

#/sbin/bash
i="0"
while [ $i -lt 10000 ]
do
date -u "+secs since 1970: %s, time:%c" > /dev/kmsg
sleep 60
i=$[$i + 1]
done

Reference Debian VM:
end time 91158.761414 - start time 87565.991128 = 3592.770286.  It
should have been 3600 seconds
Epoch time: 1213306731 - 1213303130 = 3601 close enough to 3600.

p20deb:~# ./timetest
[87565.991128] secs since 1970: 1213303130, time:Thu Jun 12 20:38:50
2008
[87625.865258] secs since 1970: 1213303190, time:Thu Jun 12 20:39:50
2008
[87685.745109] secs since 1970: 1213303250, time:Thu Jun 12 20:40:50
2008
[87745.624397] secs since 1970: 1213303310, time:Thu Jun 12 20:41:50
2008
[87805.504331] secs since 1970: 1213303370, time:Thu Jun 12 20:42:50
2008
[87865.383613] secs since 1970: 1213303430, time:Thu Jun 12 20:43:50
2008
[87925.263261] secs since 1970: 1213303490, time:Thu Jun 12 20:44:50
2008
[87985.142794] secs since 1970: 1213303550, time:Thu Jun 12 20:45:50
2008
[88045.022465] secs since 1970: 1213303610, time:Thu Jun 12 20:46:50
2008
[88104.901993] secs since 1970: 1213303670, time:Thu Jun 12 20:47:50
2008
[88164.781555] secs since 1970: 1213303730, time:Thu Jun 12 20:48:50
2008
[88224.661193] secs since 1970: 1213303790, time:Thu Jun 12 20:49:50
2008
[88284.540777] secs since 1970: 1213303850, time:Thu Jun 12 20:50:50
2008
[88344.420448] secs since 1970: 1213303910, time:Thu Jun 12 20:51:50
2008
[88404.299957] secs since 1970: 1213303970, time:Thu Jun 12 20:52:50
2008
[88464.179722] secs since 1970: 1213304030, time:Thu Jun 12 20:53:50
2008
[88524.059229] secs since 1970: 1213304090, time:Thu Jun 12 20:54:50
2008
[88583.938799] secs since 1970: 1213304150, time:Thu Jun 12 20:55:50
2008
[88643.818430] secs since 1970: 1213304210, time:Thu Jun 12 20:56:50
2008
[88703.698102] secs since 1970: 1213304270, time:Thu Jun 12 20:57:50
2008
[88763.577552] secs since 1970: 1213304330, time:Thu Jun 12 20:58:50
2008
[88823.457180] secs since 1970: 1213304390, time:Thu Jun 12 20:59:50
2008
[88883.336805] secs since 1970: 1213304450, time:Thu Jun 12 21:00:50
2008
[88943.216354] secs since 1970: 1213304510, time:Thu Jun 12 21:01:50
2008
[89003.095940] secs since 1970: 1213304570, time:Thu Jun 12 21:02:50
2008
[89062.975550] secs since 1970: 1213304630, time:Thu Jun 12 21:03:50
2008
[89122.855184] secs since 1970: 1213304690, time:Thu Jun 12 21:04:50
2008
[89182.734796] secs since 1970: 1213304750, time:Thu Jun 12 21:05:50
2008
[89242.614451] secs since 1970: 1213304810, time:Thu Jun 12 21:06:50
2008
[89302.494083] secs since 1970: 1213304870, time:Thu Jun 12 21:07:50
2008
[89362.373748] secs since 1970: 1213304930, time:Thu Jun 12 21:08:50
2008
[89422.253149] secs since 1970: 1213304990, time:Thu Jun 12 21:09:50
2008
[89482.132723] secs since 1970: 1213305050, time:Thu Jun 12 21:10:50
2008
[89542.012413] secs since 1970: 1213305110, time:Thu Jun 12 21:11:50
2008
[89601.892321] secs since 1970: 1213305171, time:Thu Jun 12 21:12:51
2008
[89661.771534] secs since 1970: 1213305231, time:Thu Jun 12 21:13:51
2008
[89721.651093] secs since 1970: 1213305291, time:Thu Jun 12 21:14:51
2008
[89781.530707] secs since 1970: 1213305351, time:Thu Jun 12 21:15:51
2008
[89841.410355] secs since 1970: 1213305411, time:Thu Jun 12 21:16:51
2008
[89901.289916] secs since 1970: 1213305471, time:Thu Jun 12 21:17:51
2008
[89961.169452] secs since 1970: 1213305531, time:Thu Jun 12 21:18:51
2008
[90021.049277] secs since 1970: 1213305591, time:Thu Jun 12 21:19:51
2008
[90080.928731] secs since 1970: 1213305651, time:Thu Jun 12 21:20:51
2008
[90140.808362] secs since 1970: 1213305711, time:Thu Jun 12 21:21:51
2008
[90200.687903] secs since 1970: 1213305771, time:Thu Jun 12 21:22:51
2008
[90260.567678] secs since 1970: 1213305831, time:Thu Jun 12 21:23:51
2008
[90320.447062] secs since 1970: 1213305891, time:Thu Jun 12 21:24:51
2008
[90380.326679] secs since 1970: 1213305951, time:Thu Jun 12 21:25:51
2008
[90440.206252] secs since 1970: 1213306011, time:Thu Jun 12 21:26:51
2008
[90500.085917] secs since 1970: 1213306071, time:Thu Jun 12 21:27:51
2008
[90559.965484] secs since 1970: 1213306131, time:Thu Jun 12 21:28:51
2008
[90619.845052] secs since 1970: 1213306191, time:Thu Jun 12 21:29:51
2008
[90679.724900] secs since 1970: 1213306251, time:Thu Jun 12 21:30:51
2008
[90739.604366] secs since 1970: 1213306311, time:Thu Jun 12 21:31:51
2008
[90799.483803] secs since 1970: 1213306371, time:Thu Jun 12 21:32:51
2008
[90859.363649] secs since 1970: 1213306431, time:Thu Jun 12 21:33:51
2008
[90919.243037] secs since 1970: 1213306491, time:Thu Jun 12 21:34:51
2008
[90979.122646] secs since 1970: 1213306551, time:Thu Jun 12 21:35:51
2008
[91039.002174] secs since 1970: 1213306611, time:Thu Jun 12 21:36:51
2008
[91098.881855] secs since 1970: 1213306671, time:Thu Jun 12 21:37:51
2008
[91158.761414] secs since 1970: 1213306731, time:Thu Jun 12 21:38:51
2008


Roger Cruz
Principal SW Engineer
Marathon Technologies Corp.
978-489-1153



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-13 19:38 UTC

head link

[Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

Whether machine load can affect an HVM guest''s time synchronisation
really
depends on how the guest OS manages time. If it depends on
''timely'' timer
ticks on a specific VCPU, for example, then there''s probably a limit to
what
we can do. Luckily it seems that many kernels are fairly robust to missing
ticks however -- using ticks just to kick off queued work and to update
system/wall-time stamps. If you want to do a really thorough testing job I
don''t think you can ignore the multi-domain case.

(1) and (2) below should probably behave similarly, but I''d expect that
(2)
might result in more regular scheduling/descheduling of the domain under
test than (1) where the other domains run I/O workloads (and hence have
irregular CPU demand).

 -- Keir

On 13/6/08 18:53, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
wrote:
> (Moving from offlist discussion.)
> 
> I''m interested in opinions...  Assume there are four
> single vcpu domains A, B, C, D, running on a 2-CPU
> physical machine.  We wish to test for time skew on
> domain A.  Assuming B, C, and D are all running
> some workload that attempts to fully saturate the
> (single) cpu.
> 
> 1) Should the affect on domain A be essentially the
>    same regardless of what load (e.g., compile,
>    lmbench, or just "while(1);") is running in
>    B, C, and D?
> 2) Should "xm sched-credit -d A -c 50" have the
>    same result (e.g. no other domains need be run)?
> 
> If the load on other domains can affect time skew on
> domain A, this raises isolation questions.  And
> it makes time skew testing much harder (What loads
> and real-customer situations can cause more skew?)
> 
> If the load on other domains canNOT affect time skew
> on domain A, testing for time skew becomes a lot
> easier.  (Use sched-credit instead of launching multiple
> domains.)
> 
> Comments?  My preliminary testing has been inconclusive.
> 
> Dan
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@virtualiron.com]
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:14 PM
> To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com
> Cc: Dave Winchell
> Subject: RE: xen hpet patch
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Usually forcing "out-of-context" is more stressful.
> I think doing it with real domains under load is more realistic.
> However, the scheduling thing may be equivalent - I just haven''t
> looked into it or thought about it.
> 
> thanks,
> Dave
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thu 6/12/2008 5:13 PM
> To: Dave Winchell
> Subject: RE: xen hpet patch
> 
> One more thought while waiting for compile and reboot:
> 
> Am I right that all of the policies are correcting for when
> a domain "A" is out-of-context?  There''s nothing in any
other
> domain "B" that can account for any timer loss/gain in domain
> "A".  The only reason we are running other domains is to ensure
> that domain "A" is sometimes out-of-context, and the more
> it is out-of-context, the more likely we will observe
> a problem, correct?
> 
> If this is true, it doesn''t matter what workload is run
> in the non-A domains... as long as it is loading the
> CPU(s), thus ensuring that domain A is sometimes not
> scheduled on any CPU.
> 
> And if all this is true, we may not need to run other
> domains at all... running "xm sched-credit -d A -c 50"
> should result in domain A being out-of-context at least
> half the time.
> 
> Dan
>> 
> 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-13 19:47 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

On 13/6/08 19:49, "Roger Cruz" <rcruz@marathontechnologies.com>
wrote:
> You can see that the kernel time in the brackets (host up time in
> seconds) should have given us a difference of 3600 seconds when ran over
> an hr period. I, however, got 3592.770286, a slip of  7+ seconds. 
I''ve
> ran a similar experiment and over the course of 12hrs, the kernel
> timestamps lose 97 seconds!
> 
> So unless I''m misunderstanding the printk times, the problem is
either
> with the way the Linux OS converts TSC cycles to seconds not being very
> accurate  OR how the hypervisor feeds the VM-ified TSC counts to the
> guest VM. 
> 
> Note that I''m sure the walltime was correct as I could monitor the
> printed walltime against an atomic clock in another window and it always
> matched (within the precision of my eyes moving back and forth, of
> course).
Do you know how the Debian kernel is computing its kernel-log timestamps?

One possibility here is that Xen system time is running at a slightly
different rate from wallclock (because the platform timer (PIT, HPET, etc)
is not running at exactly its stated frequency) and ntp running in dom0 only
keeps Xen''s wallclock reference in sync -- it does not affect
Xen''s system
time. If the Debian kernel were perhaps based on jiffies rather than xtime,
I think that might explain the drift.

This hypothesis would require Xen''s system time to be drifting at
around
2000ppm, which is not great. I would expect a platform timer to be within a
few 100ppm of its advertised frequency, really (and with jitter of much less
than 10ppm).

 -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Dan Magenheimer

2008-Jun-13 20:06 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Hi Roger --

I''m assuming this is an hvm 32-bit 2.6.18 domain and you are
running on Xen 3.1.3 or newer?

If so, try setting clock=pit in your grub.conf file then
after boot test that it "took" with:

cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource

If it is pit, try your test again.

Note that there''s a lot of work going on trying to fix
hvm timer problems right now.  There are many many different
cases because Linux has changed algorithms many times over
the history of 2.6.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com]On Behalf Of Roger Cruz
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:49 PM
> To: xen-devel
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift
> 
> 
>  <<Roger Cruz.vcf>> Hello fellow developers,
> 
> I ran across a curious observation this week when trying to 
> analyze the
> Debian 4.0 VM kernel''s printk timestamps against walltime.  
> It looks as
> if the kernel''s timestamps are running slow.
> 
> On a reference debian 4.0 VM (created from Citrix templates), 
> I ran the
> following script after booting the OS with the "time" option 
> in the grub
> boot line. 
> 
> You can see that the kernel time in the brackets (host up time in
> seconds) should have given us a difference of 3600 seconds 
> when ran over
> an hr period. I, however, got 3592.770286, a slip of  7+ 
> seconds.  I''ve
> ran a similar experiment and over the course of 12hrs, the kernel
> timestamps lose 97 seconds!
> 
> So unless I''m misunderstanding the printk times, the problem is
either
> with the way the Linux OS converts TSC cycles to seconds not 
> being very
> accurate  OR how the hypervisor feeds the VM-ified TSC counts to the
> guest VM. 
> 
> Note that I''m sure the walltime was correct as I could monitor the
> printed walltime against an atomic clock in another window 
> and it always
> matched (within the precision of my eyes moving back and forth, of
> course).
> 
> Have any of you seen something similar or have an explanation?
> 
> grub line
> title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel /boot/vmlinuz-xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013 root=/dev/xvda1 ro
> time
> savedefault
> 
> #/sbin/bash
> i="0"
> while [ $i -lt 10000 ]
> do
> date -u "+secs since 1970: %s, time:%c" > /dev/kmsg
> sleep 60
> i=$[$i + 1]
> done
> 
> Reference Debian VM:
> end time 91158.761414 - start time 87565.991128 = 3592.770286.  It
> should have been 3600 seconds
> Epoch time: 1213306731 - 1213303130 = 3601 close enough to 3600.
> 
> p20deb:~# ./timetest
> [87565.991128] secs since 1970: 1213303130, time:Thu Jun 12 20:38:50
> 2008
> [87625.865258] secs since 1970: 1213303190, time:Thu Jun 12 20:39:50
> 2008
> [87685.745109] secs since 1970: 1213303250, time:Thu Jun 12 20:40:50
> 2008
> [87745.624397] secs since 1970: 1213303310, time:Thu Jun 12 20:41:50
> 2008
> [87805.504331] secs since 1970: 1213303370, time:Thu Jun 12 20:42:50
> 2008
> [87865.383613] secs since 1970: 1213303430, time:Thu Jun 12 20:43:50
> 2008
> [87925.263261] secs since 1970: 1213303490, time:Thu Jun 12 20:44:50
> 2008
> [87985.142794] secs since 1970: 1213303550, time:Thu Jun 12 20:45:50
> 2008
> [88045.022465] secs since 1970: 1213303610, time:Thu Jun 12 20:46:50
> 2008
> [88104.901993] secs since 1970: 1213303670, time:Thu Jun 12 20:47:50
> 2008
> [88164.781555] secs since 1970: 1213303730, time:Thu Jun 12 20:48:50
> 2008
> [88224.661193] secs since 1970: 1213303790, time:Thu Jun 12 20:49:50
> 2008
> [88284.540777] secs since 1970: 1213303850, time:Thu Jun 12 20:50:50
> 2008
> [88344.420448] secs since 1970: 1213303910, time:Thu Jun 12 20:51:50
> 2008
> [88404.299957] secs since 1970: 1213303970, time:Thu Jun 12 20:52:50
> 2008
> [88464.179722] secs since 1970: 1213304030, time:Thu Jun 12 20:53:50
> 2008
> [88524.059229] secs since 1970: 1213304090, time:Thu Jun 12 20:54:50
> 2008
> [88583.938799] secs since 1970: 1213304150, time:Thu Jun 12 20:55:50
> 2008
> [88643.818430] secs since 1970: 1213304210, time:Thu Jun 12 20:56:50
> 2008
> [88703.698102] secs since 1970: 1213304270, time:Thu Jun 12 20:57:50
> 2008
> [88763.577552] secs since 1970: 1213304330, time:Thu Jun 12 20:58:50
> 2008
> [88823.457180] secs since 1970: 1213304390, time:Thu Jun 12 20:59:50
> 2008
> [88883.336805] secs since 1970: 1213304450, time:Thu Jun 12 21:00:50
> 2008
> [88943.216354] secs since 1970: 1213304510, time:Thu Jun 12 21:01:50
> 2008
> [89003.095940] secs since 1970: 1213304570, time:Thu Jun 12 21:02:50
> 2008
> [89062.975550] secs since 1970: 1213304630, time:Thu Jun 12 21:03:50
> 2008
> [89122.855184] secs since 1970: 1213304690, time:Thu Jun 12 21:04:50
> 2008
> [89182.734796] secs since 1970: 1213304750, time:Thu Jun 12 21:05:50
> 2008
> [89242.614451] secs since 1970: 1213304810, time:Thu Jun 12 21:06:50
> 2008
> [89302.494083] secs since 1970: 1213304870, time:Thu Jun 12 21:07:50
> 2008
> [89362.373748] secs since 1970: 1213304930, time:Thu Jun 12 21:08:50
> 2008
> [89422.253149] secs since 1970: 1213304990, time:Thu Jun 12 21:09:50
> 2008
> [89482.132723] secs since 1970: 1213305050, time:Thu Jun 12 21:10:50
> 2008
> [89542.012413] secs since 1970: 1213305110, time:Thu Jun 12 21:11:50
> 2008
> [89601.892321] secs since 1970: 1213305171, time:Thu Jun 12 21:12:51
> 2008
> [89661.771534] secs since 1970: 1213305231, time:Thu Jun 12 21:13:51
> 2008
> [89721.651093] secs since 1970: 1213305291, time:Thu Jun 12 21:14:51
> 2008
> [89781.530707] secs since 1970: 1213305351, time:Thu Jun 12 21:15:51
> 2008
> [89841.410355] secs since 1970: 1213305411, time:Thu Jun 12 21:16:51
> 2008
> [89901.289916] secs since 1970: 1213305471, time:Thu Jun 12 21:17:51
> 2008
> [89961.169452] secs since 1970: 1213305531, time:Thu Jun 12 21:18:51
> 2008
> [90021.049277] secs since 1970: 1213305591, time:Thu Jun 12 21:19:51
> 2008
> [90080.928731] secs since 1970: 1213305651, time:Thu Jun 12 21:20:51
> 2008
> [90140.808362] secs since 1970: 1213305711, time:Thu Jun 12 21:21:51
> 2008
> [90200.687903] secs since 1970: 1213305771, time:Thu Jun 12 21:22:51
> 2008
> [90260.567678] secs since 1970: 1213305831, time:Thu Jun 12 21:23:51
> 2008
> [90320.447062] secs since 1970: 1213305891, time:Thu Jun 12 21:24:51
> 2008
> [90380.326679] secs since 1970: 1213305951, time:Thu Jun 12 21:25:51
> 2008
> [90440.206252] secs since 1970: 1213306011, time:Thu Jun 12 21:26:51
> 2008
> [90500.085917] secs since 1970: 1213306071, time:Thu Jun 12 21:27:51
> 2008
> [90559.965484] secs since 1970: 1213306131, time:Thu Jun 12 21:28:51
> 2008
> [90619.845052] secs since 1970: 1213306191, time:Thu Jun 12 21:29:51
> 2008
> [90679.724900] secs since 1970: 1213306251, time:Thu Jun 12 21:30:51
> 2008
> [90739.604366] secs since 1970: 1213306311, time:Thu Jun 12 21:31:51
> 2008
> [90799.483803] secs since 1970: 1213306371, time:Thu Jun 12 21:32:51
> 2008
> [90859.363649] secs since 1970: 1213306431, time:Thu Jun 12 21:33:51
> 2008
> [90919.243037] secs since 1970: 1213306491, time:Thu Jun 12 21:34:51
> 2008
> [90979.122646] secs since 1970: 1213306551, time:Thu Jun 12 21:35:51
> 2008
> [91039.002174] secs since 1970: 1213306611, time:Thu Jun 12 21:36:51
> 2008
> [91098.881855] secs since 1970: 1213306671, time:Thu Jun 12 21:37:51
> 2008
> [91158.761414] secs since 1970: 1213306731, time:Thu Jun 12 21:38:51
> 2008
> 
> 
> Roger Cruz
> Principal SW Engineer
> Marathon Technologies Corp.
> 978-489-1153
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Roger Cruz

2008-Jun-13 20:10 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Hi Keir,

Thanks for taking the time to answer my question.

I do not know how the kernel times are getting computed exactly.  This
is an area of Linux which I''m not very familiar with.  

Prior to my test on the reference debian VM, I performed exactly the
same test on a Linux VM we build based on the Citrix-provided Linux
2.6.18 sources (my understanding is that these are the sources dom0 is
using, correct me if wrong) and saw the same drift.  That''s why I
decided to do a test on a reference VM to make sure it was not caused by
our own VM.

When I looked at the Linux 2.6.18 sources to try to track down how these
times are computed, I found the following for an x86, 32-bit platform...

MtcAbsDbgPrint -> vprintk -> printk_clock  -> sched_clock -> rdtscll

MtcAbsTimeGetTimestampGmt -> current_kernel_time -> return timespec
variable "xtime"

"xtime" is in UTC and I believe it''s updated as a result of
the timer
interrupt in the sequence below

do_timer_interrupt_hook-> do_timer-> update_times  ->update_wall_time
->
updates "xtime"

Note that I''m not 100% of these call sequences since they were derived
by looking at the sources and not tracing it with any debugger.  This is
how I came to conclude that the kernel timestamps (generated as a result
of us calling vprintk) are derived from the RDTSC instruction.  It is my
understanding that the TSC values are derived by the hypervisor from the
actual CPU register and some computed offset.  I have yet to examine
this code myself.

The walltime appears to be generated from periodic timer ticks that
update "xtime".  These values have always been correct.  Only the ones
that get generated with the vprintk appear to slip when compared to this
wall time.

Roger

-----Original Message-----
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:48 PM
To: Roger Cruz; xen-devel
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

On 13/6/08 19:49, "Roger Cruz" <rcruz@marathontechnologies.com>
wrote:
> You can see that the kernel time in the brackets (host up time in
> seconds) should have given us a difference of 3600 seconds when ran
over> an hr period. I, however, got 3592.770286, a slip of  7+ seconds.
I''ve> ran a similar experiment and over the course of 12hrs, the kernel
> timestamps lose 97 seconds!
> 
> So unless I''m misunderstanding the printk times, the problem is
either
> with the way the Linux OS converts TSC cycles to seconds not being
very> accurate  OR how the hypervisor feeds the VM-ified TSC counts to the
> guest VM. 
> 
> Note that I''m sure the walltime was correct as I could monitor the
> printed walltime against an atomic clock in another window and it
always> matched (within the precision of my eyes moving back and forth, of
> course).
Do you know how the Debian kernel is computing its kernel-log
timestamps?

One possibility here is that Xen system time is running at a slightly
different rate from wallclock (because the platform timer (PIT, HPET,
etc)
is not running at exactly its stated frequency) and ntp running in dom0
only
keeps Xen''s wallclock reference in sync -- it does not affect
Xen''s
system
time. If the Debian kernel were perhaps based on jiffies rather than
xtime,
I think that might explain the drift.

This hypothesis would require Xen''s system time to be drifting at
around
2000ppm, which is not great. I would expect a platform timer to be
within a
few 100ppm of its advertised frequency, really (and with jitter of much
less
than 10ppm).

 -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-13 20:31 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

On 13/6/08 21:10, "Roger Cruz" <rcruz@marathontechnologies.com>
wrote:
> The walltime appears to be generated from periodic timer ticks that
> update "xtime".  These values have always been correct.  Only the
ones
> that get generated with the vprintk appear to slip when compared to this
> wall time.
Yes, sched_clock() can drift relative to wall time. It''s an internal
monotonic timesource for the kernel, and if it drifts it doesn''t
usually
matter. It''s not visible to user space. So, that explains your vprintk
timestamp drift. I hope it doesn''t bother you too much. :-)

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Roger Cruz

2008-Jun-13 21:05 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

I''ve performed this test on two VMs, which it''s my
understanding are
both PV, 32-bits and compiled from the 2.6.18.  I am using Citrix''s
XenEnterprise 4.1.0 software and you can see its VM''s configuration
below, giving the version and the PV bootloader.

I applied your changes to the grub line but I don''t believe it is
taking:

Prior to application:

p20deb:~# cat
/sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
jiffies

after "clock=pit" added to my grub line

titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013
root(hd0,0)
kernel/boot/vmlinuz-xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013 root=/dev/xvda1 ro
time clock=pit
savedefault

p20deb:~# cat
/sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
jiffies

I ran the test with clock=pit and it still drifted

[root@p20xen1 ~]# xe vm-list name-label=Debian\ Etch\ 4.0\ \(1\) paramsuuid (
RO)                          :
bc40e67c-2f85-5be1-66ef-31ae3b2ab8b3
                    name-label ( RW): Debian Etch 4.0 (1)
              name-description ( RW):
                  user-version ( RW): 1
                 is-a-template ( RW): false
             is-control-domain ( RO): false
                   power-state ( RO): halted
            memory-dynamic-max ( RW): 268435456
            memory-dynamic-min ( RW): 268435456
             memory-static-max ( RW): 268435456
             memory-static-min ( RW): 16777216
              suspend-VDI-uuid ( RO): <not in database>
                  VCPUs-params (MRW):
                     VCPUs-max ( RW): 1
              VCPUs-at-startup ( RW): 1
        actions-after-shutdown ( RW): Destroy
          actions-after-reboot ( RW): Restart
           actions-after-crash ( RW): Restart
                 console-uuids (SRO):
ecf5b121-6a0b-9a6d-fb98-62c608afaa24
                      platform (MRW): nx: false; acpi: true; apic: true;
pae: true
            allowed-operations (SRO): clone; start; start_on; export;
destroy; make_into_template
            current-operations (SRO):
           allowed-VBD-devices (SRO): <expensive field>
           allowed-VIF-devices (SRO): <expensive field>
                possible-hosts ( RO): <expensive field>
               HVM-boot-policy ( RW):
               HVM-boot-params (MRW):
         HVM-shadow-multiplier ( RW): 1.000
                     PV-kernel ( RW):
                    PV-ramdisk ( RW):
                       PV-args ( RW):
                PV-legacy-args ( RW):
                 PV-bootloader ( RW): pygrub
            PV-bootloader-args ( RW):
           last-boot-CPU-flags ( RO):
                   resident-on ( RO): <not in database>
                      affinity ( RW):
1c29b960-78b2-46cc-a808-8cb454a3cece
                  other-config (MRW): last_shutdown_time:
20080612T20:16:56Z; last_shutdown_action: Restart;
last_shutdown_initiator: internal; last_shutdown_reason: rebooted;
linux_template: true; mac_seed: e381c9e3-0346-09d6-d92e-815f5267bbf8
                        dom-id ( RO): -1
               recommendations ( RO): <restrictions><restriction
field="memory-static-max" max="34359738368"
/><restriction
field="vcpus-max" max="8" /><restriction
property="number-of-vbds"
max="7" /><restriction property="number-of-vifs"
max="7"
/></restrictions>
                 xenstore-data (MRW):
                    start-time ( RO): <unknown time>
                  install-time ( RO): <unknown time>
                 memory-actual ( RO): <not in database>
                  VCPUs-number ( RO): <not in database>
             VCPUs-utilisation (MRO): <not in database>
       vm-metrics-last-updated ( RO): <not in database>
                    os-version (MRO): name: Debian 4.0; uname:
2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013; distro: debian; major: 4; minor: 0
            PV-drivers-version (MRO): major: 4; minor: 1; micro: 0
         PV-drivers-up-to-date ( RO): true
                        memory (MRO):
                         disks (MRO):
                      networks (MRO):
                         other (MRO):
    guest-metrics-last-updated ( RO): 19700101T00:00:00Z


-----Original Message-----
From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:06 PM
To: Roger Cruz; xen-devel
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Hi Roger --

I''m assuming this is an hvm 32-bit 2.6.18 domain and you are
running on Xen 3.1.3 or newer?

If so, try setting clock=pit in your grub.conf file then
after boot test that it "took" with:

cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource

If it is pit, try your test again.

Note that there''s a lot of work going on trying to fix
hvm timer problems right now.  There are many many different
cases because Linux has changed algorithms many times over
the history of 2.6.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com]On Behalf Of Roger Cruz
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:49 PM
> To: xen-devel
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift
> 
> 
>  <<Roger Cruz.vcf>> Hello fellow developers,
> 
> I ran across a curious observation this week when trying to 
> analyze the
> Debian 4.0 VM kernel''s printk timestamps against walltime.  
> It looks as
> if the kernel''s timestamps are running slow.
> 
> On a reference debian 4.0 VM (created from Citrix templates), 
> I ran the
> following script after booting the OS with the "time" option 
> in the grub
> boot line. 
> 
> You can see that the kernel time in the brackets (host up time in
> seconds) should have given us a difference of 3600 seconds 
> when ran over
> an hr period. I, however, got 3592.770286, a slip of  7+ 
> seconds.  I''ve
> ran a similar experiment and over the course of 12hrs, the kernel
> timestamps lose 97 seconds!
> 
> So unless I''m misunderstanding the printk times, the problem is
either
> with the way the Linux OS converts TSC cycles to seconds not 
> being very
> accurate  OR how the hypervisor feeds the VM-ified TSC counts to the
> guest VM. 
> 
> Note that I''m sure the walltime was correct as I could monitor the
> printed walltime against an atomic clock in another window 
> and it always
> matched (within the precision of my eyes moving back and forth, of
> course).
> 
> Have any of you seen something similar or have an explanation?
> 
> grub line
> title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013
> root (hd0,0)
> kernel /boot/vmlinuz-xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013 root=/dev/xvda1 ro
> time
> savedefault
> 
> #/sbin/bash
> i="0"
> while [ $i -lt 10000 ]
> do
> date -u "+secs since 1970: %s, time:%c" > /dev/kmsg
> sleep 60
> i=$[$i + 1]
> done
> 
> Reference Debian VM:
> end time 91158.761414 - start time 87565.991128 = 3592.770286.  It
> should have been 3600 seconds
> Epoch time: 1213306731 - 1213303130 = 3601 close enough to 3600.
> 
> p20deb:~# ./timetest
> [87565.991128] secs since 1970: 1213303130, time:Thu Jun 12 20:38:50
> 2008
> [87625.865258] secs since 1970: 1213303190, time:Thu Jun 12 20:39:50
> 2008
> [87685.745109] secs since 1970: 1213303250, time:Thu Jun 12 20:40:50
> 2008
> [87745.624397] secs since 1970: 1213303310, time:Thu Jun 12 20:41:50
> 2008
> [87805.504331] secs since 1970: 1213303370, time:Thu Jun 12 20:42:50
> 2008
> [87865.383613] secs since 1970: 1213303430, time:Thu Jun 12 20:43:50
> 2008
> [87925.263261] secs since 1970: 1213303490, time:Thu Jun 12 20:44:50
> 2008
> [87985.142794] secs since 1970: 1213303550, time:Thu Jun 12 20:45:50
> 2008
> [88045.022465] secs since 1970: 1213303610, time:Thu Jun 12 20:46:50
> 2008
> [88104.901993] secs since 1970: 1213303670, time:Thu Jun 12 20:47:50
> 2008
> [88164.781555] secs since 1970: 1213303730, time:Thu Jun 12 20:48:50
> 2008
> [88224.661193] secs since 1970: 1213303790, time:Thu Jun 12 20:49:50
> 2008
> [88284.540777] secs since 1970: 1213303850, time:Thu Jun 12 20:50:50
> 2008
> [88344.420448] secs since 1970: 1213303910, time:Thu Jun 12 20:51:50
> 2008
> [88404.299957] secs since 1970: 1213303970, time:Thu Jun 12 20:52:50
> 2008
> [88464.179722] secs since 1970: 1213304030, time:Thu Jun 12 20:53:50
> 2008
> [88524.059229] secs since 1970: 1213304090, time:Thu Jun 12 20:54:50
> 2008
> [88583.938799] secs since 1970: 1213304150, time:Thu Jun 12 20:55:50
> 2008
> [88643.818430] secs since 1970: 1213304210, time:Thu Jun 12 20:56:50
> 2008
> [88703.698102] secs since 1970: 1213304270, time:Thu Jun 12 20:57:50
> 2008
> [88763.577552] secs since 1970: 1213304330, time:Thu Jun 12 20:58:50
> 2008
> [88823.457180] secs since 1970: 1213304390, time:Thu Jun 12 20:59:50
> 2008
> [88883.336805] secs since 1970: 1213304450, time:Thu Jun 12 21:00:50
> 2008
> [88943.216354] secs since 1970: 1213304510, time:Thu Jun 12 21:01:50
> 2008
> [89003.095940] secs since 1970: 1213304570, time:Thu Jun 12 21:02:50
> 2008
> [89062.975550] secs since 1970: 1213304630, time:Thu Jun 12 21:03:50
> 2008
> [89122.855184] secs since 1970: 1213304690, time:Thu Jun 12 21:04:50
> 2008
> [89182.734796] secs since 1970: 1213304750, time:Thu Jun 12 21:05:50
> 2008
> [89242.614451] secs since 1970: 1213304810, time:Thu Jun 12 21:06:50
> 2008
> [89302.494083] secs since 1970: 1213304870, time:Thu Jun 12 21:07:50
> 2008
> [89362.373748] secs since 1970: 1213304930, time:Thu Jun 12 21:08:50
> 2008
> [89422.253149] secs since 1970: 1213304990, time:Thu Jun 12 21:09:50
> 2008
> [89482.132723] secs since 1970: 1213305050, time:Thu Jun 12 21:10:50
> 2008
> [89542.012413] secs since 1970: 1213305110, time:Thu Jun 12 21:11:50
> 2008
> [89601.892321] secs since 1970: 1213305171, time:Thu Jun 12 21:12:51
> 2008
> [89661.771534] secs since 1970: 1213305231, time:Thu Jun 12 21:13:51
> 2008
> [89721.651093] secs since 1970: 1213305291, time:Thu Jun 12 21:14:51
> 2008
> [89781.530707] secs since 1970: 1213305351, time:Thu Jun 12 21:15:51
> 2008
> [89841.410355] secs since 1970: 1213305411, time:Thu Jun 12 21:16:51
> 2008
> [89901.289916] secs since 1970: 1213305471, time:Thu Jun 12 21:17:51
> 2008
> [89961.169452] secs since 1970: 1213305531, time:Thu Jun 12 21:18:51
> 2008
> [90021.049277] secs since 1970: 1213305591, time:Thu Jun 12 21:19:51
> 2008
> [90080.928731] secs since 1970: 1213305651, time:Thu Jun 12 21:20:51
> 2008
> [90140.808362] secs since 1970: 1213305711, time:Thu Jun 12 21:21:51
> 2008
> [90200.687903] secs since 1970: 1213305771, time:Thu Jun 12 21:22:51
> 2008
> [90260.567678] secs since 1970: 1213305831, time:Thu Jun 12 21:23:51
> 2008
> [90320.447062] secs since 1970: 1213305891, time:Thu Jun 12 21:24:51
> 2008
> [90380.326679] secs since 1970: 1213305951, time:Thu Jun 12 21:25:51
> 2008
> [90440.206252] secs since 1970: 1213306011, time:Thu Jun 12 21:26:51
> 2008
> [90500.085917] secs since 1970: 1213306071, time:Thu Jun 12 21:27:51
> 2008
> [90559.965484] secs since 1970: 1213306131, time:Thu Jun 12 21:28:51
> 2008
> [90619.845052] secs since 1970: 1213306191, time:Thu Jun 12 21:29:51
> 2008
> [90679.724900] secs since 1970: 1213306251, time:Thu Jun 12 21:30:51
> 2008
> [90739.604366] secs since 1970: 1213306311, time:Thu Jun 12 21:31:51
> 2008
> [90799.483803] secs since 1970: 1213306371, time:Thu Jun 12 21:32:51
> 2008
> [90859.363649] secs since 1970: 1213306431, time:Thu Jun 12 21:33:51
> 2008
> [90919.243037] secs since 1970: 1213306491, time:Thu Jun 12 21:34:51
> 2008
> [90979.122646] secs since 1970: 1213306551, time:Thu Jun 12 21:35:51
> 2008
> [91039.002174] secs since 1970: 1213306611, time:Thu Jun 12 21:36:51
> 2008
> [91098.881855] secs since 1970: 1213306671, time:Thu Jun 12 21:37:51
> 2008
> [91158.761414] secs since 1970: 1213306731, time:Thu Jun 12 21:38:51
> 2008
> 
> 
> Roger Cruz
> Principal SW Engineer
> Marathon Technologies Corp.
> 978-489-1153
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Dan Magenheimer

2008-Jun-13 21:21 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Hi Roger --

Sorry, I made a bad assumption... the solution I provided
works for hvm domains.  For pvm domains, the guest clock
will generally be determined by xen system time, and as
Keir said, if the underlying clock xen is using skews from
wallclock time, then xen system time will skew also.

I think the solution for this situation is to ensure
that /proc/sys/xen/independent_wallclock is set to 0
for each of your pvm domains and run ntpd on domain0.

Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Roger Cruz [mailto:rcruz@marathontechnologies.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 3:05 PM
> To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com; xen-devel
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift
> 
> 
> I''ve performed this test on two VMs, which it''s my
understanding are
> both PV, 32-bits and compiled from the 2.6.18.  I am using
Citrix''s
> XenEnterprise 4.1.0 software and you can see its VM''s
configuration
> below, giving the version and the PV bootloader.
> 
> I applied your changes to the grub line but I don''t believe it is
> taking:
> 
> Prior to application:
> 
> p20deb:~# cat
> /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> jiffies
> 
> after "clock=pit" added to my grub line
> 
> titleDebian GNU/Linux, kernel xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013
> root(hd0,0)
> kernel/boot/vmlinuz-xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013 root=/dev/xvda1 ro
> time clock=pit
> savedefault
> 
> p20deb:~# cat
> /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> jiffies
> 
> I ran the test with clock=pit and it still drifted
> 
> [root@p20xen1 ~]# xe vm-list name-label=Debian\ Etch\ 4.0\ 
> \(1\) params> uuid ( RO)                          :
> bc40e67c-2f85-5be1-66ef-31ae3b2ab8b3
>                     name-label ( RW): Debian Etch 4.0 (1)
>               name-description ( RW):
>                   user-version ( RW): 1
>                  is-a-template ( RW): false
>              is-control-domain ( RO): false
>                    power-state ( RO): halted
>             memory-dynamic-max ( RW): 268435456
>             memory-dynamic-min ( RW): 268435456
>              memory-static-max ( RW): 268435456
>              memory-static-min ( RW): 16777216
>               suspend-VDI-uuid ( RO): <not in database>
>                   VCPUs-params (MRW):
>                      VCPUs-max ( RW): 1
>               VCPUs-at-startup ( RW): 1
>         actions-after-shutdown ( RW): Destroy
>           actions-after-reboot ( RW): Restart
>            actions-after-crash ( RW): Restart
>                  console-uuids (SRO):
> ecf5b121-6a0b-9a6d-fb98-62c608afaa24
>                       platform (MRW): nx: false; acpi: true; 
> apic: true;
> pae: true
>             allowed-operations (SRO): clone; start; start_on; export;
> destroy; make_into_template
>             current-operations (SRO):
>            allowed-VBD-devices (SRO): <expensive field>
>            allowed-VIF-devices (SRO): <expensive field>
>                 possible-hosts ( RO): <expensive field>
>                HVM-boot-policy ( RW):
>                HVM-boot-params (MRW):
>          HVM-shadow-multiplier ( RW): 1.000
>                      PV-kernel ( RW):
>                     PV-ramdisk ( RW):
>                        PV-args ( RW):
>                 PV-legacy-args ( RW):
>                  PV-bootloader ( RW): pygrub
>             PV-bootloader-args ( RW):
>            last-boot-CPU-flags ( RO):
>                    resident-on ( RO): <not in database>
>                       affinity ( RW):
> 1c29b960-78b2-46cc-a808-8cb454a3cece
>                   other-config (MRW): last_shutdown_time:
> 20080612T20:16:56Z; last_shutdown_action: Restart;
> last_shutdown_initiator: internal; last_shutdown_reason: rebooted;
> linux_template: true; mac_seed: e381c9e3-0346-09d6-d92e-815f5267bbf8
>                         dom-id ( RO): -1
>                recommendations ( RO): <restrictions><restriction
> field="memory-static-max" max="34359738368"
/><restriction
> field="vcpus-max" max="8" /><restriction
property="number-of-vbds"
> max="7" /><restriction property="number-of-vifs"
max="7"
> /></restrictions>
>                  xenstore-data (MRW):
>                     start-time ( RO): <unknown time>
>                   install-time ( RO): <unknown time>
>                  memory-actual ( RO): <not in database>
>                   VCPUs-number ( RO): <not in database>
>              VCPUs-utilisation (MRO): <not in database>
>        vm-metrics-last-updated ( RO): <not in database>
>                     os-version (MRO): name: Debian 4.0; uname:
> 2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013; distro: debian; major: 4; minor: 0
>             PV-drivers-version (MRO): major: 4; minor: 1; micro: 0
>          PV-drivers-up-to-date ( RO): true
>                         memory (MRO):
>                          disks (MRO):
>                       networks (MRO):
>                          other (MRO):
>     guest-metrics-last-updated ( RO): 19700101T00:00:00Z
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@oracle.com] 
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 4:06 PM
> To: Roger Cruz; xen-devel
> Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift
> 
> Hi Roger --
> 
> I''m assuming this is an hvm 32-bit 2.6.18 domain and you are
> running on Xen 3.1.3 or newer?
> 
> If so, try setting clock=pit in your grub.conf file then
> after boot test that it "took" with:
> 
> cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource
> 
> If it is pit, try your test again.
> 
> Note that there''s a lot of work going on trying to fix
> hvm timer problems right now.  There are many many different
> cases because Linux has changed algorithms many times over
> the history of 2.6.
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> > [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com]On Behalf Of 
> Roger Cruz
> > Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 12:49 PM
> > To: xen-devel
> > Subject: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift
> > 
> > 
> >  <<Roger Cruz.vcf>> Hello fellow developers,
> > 
> > I ran across a curious observation this week when trying to 
> > analyze the
> > Debian 4.0 VM kernel''s printk timestamps against walltime.  
> > It looks as
> > if the kernel''s timestamps are running slow.
> > 
> > On a reference debian 4.0 VM (created from Citrix templates), 
> > I ran the
> > following script after booting the OS with the "time" option
> > in the grub
> > boot line. 
> > 
> > You can see that the kernel time in the brackets (host up time in
> > seconds) should have given us a difference of 3600 seconds 
> > when ran over
> > an hr period. I, however, got 3592.770286, a slip of  7+ 
> > seconds.  I''ve
> > ran a similar experiment and over the course of 12hrs, the kernel
> > timestamps lose 97 seconds!
> > 
> > So unless I''m misunderstanding the printk times, the 
> problem is either
> > with the way the Linux OS converts TSC cycles to seconds not 
> > being very
> > accurate  OR how the hypervisor feeds the VM-ified TSC counts to the
> > guest VM. 
> > 
> > Note that I''m sure the walltime was correct as I could
monitor the
> > printed walltime against an atomic clock in another window 
> > and it always
> > matched (within the precision of my eyes moving back and forth, of
> > course).
> > 
> > Have any of you seen something similar or have an explanation?
> > 
> > grub line
> > title Debian GNU/Linux, kernel xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013
> > root (hd0,0)
> > kernel /boot/vmlinuz-xenu-2.6.18.xs4.1.0.1168.6013 
> root=/dev/xvda1 ro
> > time
> > savedefault
> > 
> > #/sbin/bash
> > i="0"
> > while [ $i -lt 10000 ]
> > do
> > date -u "+secs since 1970: %s, time:%c" > /dev/kmsg
> > sleep 60
> > i=$[$i + 1]
> > done
> > 
> > Reference Debian VM:
> > end time 91158.761414 - start time 87565.991128 = 3592.770286.  It
> > should have been 3600 seconds
> > Epoch time: 1213306731 - 1213303130 = 3601 close enough to 3600.
> > 
> > p20deb:~# ./timetest
> > [87565.991128] secs since 1970: 1213303130, time:Thu Jun 12 20:38:50
> > 2008
> > [87625.865258] secs since 1970: 1213303190, time:Thu Jun 12 20:39:50
> > 2008
> > [87685.745109] secs since 1970: 1213303250, time:Thu Jun 12 20:40:50
> > 2008
> > [87745.624397] secs since 1970: 1213303310, time:Thu Jun 12 20:41:50
> > 2008
> > [87805.504331] secs since 1970: 1213303370, time:Thu Jun 12 20:42:50
> > 2008
> > [87865.383613] secs since 1970: 1213303430, time:Thu Jun 12 20:43:50
> > 2008
> > [87925.263261] secs since 1970: 1213303490, time:Thu Jun 12 20:44:50
> > 2008
> > [87985.142794] secs since 1970: 1213303550, time:Thu Jun 12 20:45:50
> > 2008
> > [88045.022465] secs since 1970: 1213303610, time:Thu Jun 12 20:46:50
> > 2008
> > [88104.901993] secs since 1970: 1213303670, time:Thu Jun 12 20:47:50
> > 2008
> > [88164.781555] secs since 1970: 1213303730, time:Thu Jun 12 20:48:50
> > 2008
> > [88224.661193] secs since 1970: 1213303790, time:Thu Jun 12 20:49:50
> > 2008
> > [88284.540777] secs since 1970: 1213303850, time:Thu Jun 12 20:50:50
> > 2008
> > [88344.420448] secs since 1970: 1213303910, time:Thu Jun 12 20:51:50
> > 2008
> > [88404.299957] secs since 1970: 1213303970, time:Thu Jun 12 20:52:50
> > 2008
> > [88464.179722] secs since 1970: 1213304030, time:Thu Jun 12 20:53:50
> > 2008
> > [88524.059229] secs since 1970: 1213304090, time:Thu Jun 12 20:54:50
> > 2008
> > [88583.938799] secs since 1970: 1213304150, time:Thu Jun 12 20:55:50
> > 2008
> > [88643.818430] secs since 1970: 1213304210, time:Thu Jun 12 20:56:50
> > 2008
> > [88703.698102] secs since 1970: 1213304270, time:Thu Jun 12 20:57:50
> > 2008
> > [88763.577552] secs since 1970: 1213304330, time:Thu Jun 12 20:58:50
> > 2008
> > [88823.457180] secs since 1970: 1213304390, time:Thu Jun 12 20:59:50
> > 2008
> > [88883.336805] secs since 1970: 1213304450, time:Thu Jun 12 21:00:50
> > 2008
> > [88943.216354] secs since 1970: 1213304510, time:Thu Jun 12 21:01:50
> > 2008
> > [89003.095940] secs since 1970: 1213304570, time:Thu Jun 12 21:02:50
> > 2008
> > [89062.975550] secs since 1970: 1213304630, time:Thu Jun 12 21:03:50
> > 2008
> > [89122.855184] secs since 1970: 1213304690, time:Thu Jun 12 21:04:50
> > 2008
> > [89182.734796] secs since 1970: 1213304750, time:Thu Jun 12 21:05:50
> > 2008
> > [89242.614451] secs since 1970: 1213304810, time:Thu Jun 12 21:06:50
> > 2008
> > [89302.494083] secs since 1970: 1213304870, time:Thu Jun 12 21:07:50
> > 2008
> > [89362.373748] secs since 1970: 1213304930, time:Thu Jun 12 21:08:50
> > 2008
> > [89422.253149] secs since 1970: 1213304990, time:Thu Jun 12 21:09:50
> > 2008
> > [89482.132723] secs since 1970: 1213305050, time:Thu Jun 12 21:10:50
> > 2008
> > [89542.012413] secs since 1970: 1213305110, time:Thu Jun 12 21:11:50
> > 2008
> > [89601.892321] secs since 1970: 1213305171, time:Thu Jun 12 21:12:51
> > 2008
> > [89661.771534] secs since 1970: 1213305231, time:Thu Jun 12 21:13:51
> > 2008
> > [89721.651093] secs since 1970: 1213305291, time:Thu Jun 12 21:14:51
> > 2008
> > [89781.530707] secs since 1970: 1213305351, time:Thu Jun 12 21:15:51
> > 2008
> > [89841.410355] secs since 1970: 1213305411, time:Thu Jun 12 21:16:51
> > 2008
> > [89901.289916] secs since 1970: 1213305471, time:Thu Jun 12 21:17:51
> > 2008
> > [89961.169452] secs since 1970: 1213305531, time:Thu Jun 12 21:18:51
> > 2008
> > [90021.049277] secs since 1970: 1213305591, time:Thu Jun 12 21:19:51
> > 2008
> > [90080.928731] secs since 1970: 1213305651, time:Thu Jun 12 21:20:51
> > 2008
> > [90140.808362] secs since 1970: 1213305711, time:Thu Jun 12 21:21:51
> > 2008
> > [90200.687903] secs since 1970: 1213305771, time:Thu Jun 12 21:22:51
> > 2008
> > [90260.567678] secs since 1970: 1213305831, time:Thu Jun 12 21:23:51
> > 2008
> > [90320.447062] secs since 1970: 1213305891, time:Thu Jun 12 21:24:51
> > 2008
> > [90380.326679] secs since 1970: 1213305951, time:Thu Jun 12 21:25:51
> > 2008
> > [90440.206252] secs since 1970: 1213306011, time:Thu Jun 12 21:26:51
> > 2008
> > [90500.085917] secs since 1970: 1213306071, time:Thu Jun 12 21:27:51
> > 2008
> > [90559.965484] secs since 1970: 1213306131, time:Thu Jun 12 21:28:51
> > 2008
> > [90619.845052] secs since 1970: 1213306191, time:Thu Jun 12 21:29:51
> > 2008
> > [90679.724900] secs since 1970: 1213306251, time:Thu Jun 12 21:30:51
> > 2008
> > [90739.604366] secs since 1970: 1213306311, time:Thu Jun 12 21:31:51
> > 2008
> > [90799.483803] secs since 1970: 1213306371, time:Thu Jun 12 21:32:51
> > 2008
> > [90859.363649] secs since 1970: 1213306431, time:Thu Jun 12 21:33:51
> > 2008
> > [90919.243037] secs since 1970: 1213306491, time:Thu Jun 12 21:34:51
> > 2008
> > [90979.122646] secs since 1970: 1213306551, time:Thu Jun 12 21:35:51
> > 2008
> > [91039.002174] secs since 1970: 1213306611, time:Thu Jun 12 21:36:51
> > 2008
> > [91098.881855] secs since 1970: 1213306671, time:Thu Jun 12 21:37:51
> > 2008
> > [91158.761414] secs since 1970: 1213306731, time:Thu Jun 12 21:38:51
> > 2008
> > 
> > 
> > Roger Cruz
> > Principal SW Engineer
> > Marathon Technologies Corp.
> > 978-489-1153
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-13 21:36 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

On 13/6/08 22:21, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hi Roger --
> 
> Sorry, I made a bad assumption... the solution I provided
> works for hvm domains.  For pvm domains, the guest clock
> will generally be determined by xen system time, and as
> Keir said, if the underlying clock xen is using skews from
> wallclock time, then xen system time will skew also.
> 
> I think the solution for this situation is to ensure
> that /proc/sys/xen/independent_wallclock is set to 0
> for each of your pvm domains and run ntpd on domain0.
Since sched_clock() is not built on top of xtime, this won''t help.
sched_clock()''s implementation is tightly bound to Xen system time in
our
Linux patchset. It could be changed, but really I think these timestamps are
the only noticeable artefact.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Roger Cruz

2008-Jun-13 22:02 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Keir,

Was I correct in my understanding on how the timestamp is being obtained
via this call sequence?

-> vprintk -> printk_clock  -> sched_clock -> rdtscll

In other words, does your patchset use the rdtscll instruction on an
i386, pv, 32-bit linux to compute determine that time?  If not, how is
it derived (what file/function should I look at for sched_clock?).

While you are right that the only artifact that we have observed is the
drifting timestamps, a future product of ours may need to have an
accurate TSC presentation to the VM and if the time is being derived
from the TSC as I''m conjecturing, then this drift is something
we''re
going to have to worry about then.

Thank you Keir and Dan 

-----Original Message-----
From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com] 
Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 5:36 PM
To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com; Roger Cruz
Cc: xen-devel
Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

On 13/6/08 22:21, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
wrote:
> Hi Roger --
> 
> Sorry, I made a bad assumption... the solution I provided
> works for hvm domains.  For pvm domains, the guest clock
> will generally be determined by xen system time, and as
> Keir said, if the underlying clock xen is using skews from
> wallclock time, then xen system time will skew also.
> 
> I think the solution for this situation is to ensure
> that /proc/sys/xen/independent_wallclock is set to 0
> for each of your pvm domains and run ntpd on domain0.
Since sched_clock() is not built on top of xtime, this won''t help.
sched_clock()''s implementation is tightly bound to Xen system time in
our
Linux patchset. It could be changed, but really I think these timestamps
are
the only noticeable artefact.

 -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-13 22:09 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

On 13/6/08 23:02, "Roger Cruz" <rcruz@marathontechnologies.com>
wrote:
> Was I correct in my understanding on how the timestamp is being obtained
> via this call sequence?
> 
> -> vprintk -> printk_clock  -> sched_clock -> rdtscll
> 
> In other words, does your patchset use the rdtscll instruction on an
> i386, pv, 32-bit linux to compute determine that time?  If not, how is
> it derived (what file/function should I look at for sched_clock?).
The guest calculates current Xen system time based on extrapolating from a
Xen-supplied timestamp using current TSC:
 sys_time = sys_timestamp + (RDTSC - tsc_timestamp) * scale_factor

Where three terms on the RHS of the formula are supplied by Xen in the
shared_info page, and the fourth is returned by the RDTSC CPU instruction.
> While you are right that the only artifact that we have observed is the
> drifting timestamps, a future product of ours may need to have an
> accurate TSC presentation to the VM and if the time is being derived
> from the TSC as I''m conjecturing, then this drift is something
we''re
> going to have to worry about then.
Depends what you mean by accurate. PV guests see the underlying host TSC
directly. In that sense what they see is 100% accurate!

 -- Keir
> Thank you Keir and Dan 


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Dan Magenheimer

2008-Jun-14 02:20 UTC

head link

[Xen-devel] RE: Isolation and time

OK, I guess I can buy that.   Running real domains
will cause more scheduling "artifacts":  domain A
will likely run more frequently for shorter periods
of time than if sched-credit-capped with no other
domains running.  And more frequent "spurts" could
result in more fractional ticks in domain A that
potentially could get lost or miscounted.

But is there anything else?

Suppose the credit scheduler were modified to
optionally schedule random "spurts" when the
sum of caps was less than the total available
CPU.  Would you then expect the results to be
essentially the same?

And, on a N pcpu machine, if a single "interference
domain" was run with N threads that randomly absorb
much/most of each VCPU (but do no I/O), would that
be just as good as running multiple interference domains?

I''m not just wondering this for curiosity.  All of
my recent hpet testing used multiple domains that
ate CPU, but did no I/O.

Thanks,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 13, 2008 1:39 PM
> To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com; Dave Winchell; Ben Guthro; xen-devel
> Subject: Re: Isolation and time
> 
> 
> Whether machine load can affect an HVM guest''s time 
> synchronisation really
> depends on how the guest OS manages time. If it depends on 
> ''timely'' timer
> ticks on a specific VCPU, for example, then there''s probably 
> a limit to what
> we can do. Luckily it seems that many kernels are fairly 
> robust to missing
> ticks however -- using ticks just to kick off queued work and 
> to update
> system/wall-time stamps. If you want to do a really thorough 
> testing job I
> don''t think you can ignore the multi-domain case.
> 
> (1) and (2) below should probably behave similarly, but I''d 
> expect that (2)
> might result in more regular scheduling/descheduling of the 
> domain under
> test than (1) where the other domains run I/O workloads (and 
> hence have
> irregular CPU demand).
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> On 13/6/08 18:53, "Dan Magenheimer" 
> <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > (Moving from offlist discussion.)
> >
> > I''m interested in opinions...  Assume there are four
> > single vcpu domains A, B, C, D, running on a 2-CPU
> > physical machine.  We wish to test for time skew on
> > domain A.  Assuming B, C, and D are all running
> > some workload that attempts to fully saturate the
> > (single) cpu.
> >
> > 1) Should the affect on domain A be essentially the
> >    same regardless of what load (e.g., compile,
> >    lmbench, or just "while(1);") is running in
> >    B, C, and D?
> > 2) Should "xm sched-credit -d A -c 50" have the
> >    same result (e.g. no other domains need be run)?
> >
> > If the load on other domains can affect time skew on
> > domain A, this raises isolation questions.  And
> > it makes time skew testing much harder (What loads
> > and real-customer situations can cause more skew?)
> >
> > If the load on other domains canNOT affect time skew
> > on domain A, testing for time skew becomes a lot
> > easier.  (Use sched-credit instead of launching multiple
> > domains.)
> >
> > Comments?  My preliminary testing has been inconclusive.
> >
> > Dan
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Winchell [mailto:dwinchell@virtualiron.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 4:14 PM
> > To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com
> > Cc: Dave Winchell
> > Subject: RE: xen hpet patch
> >
> >
> > Dan,
> >
> > Usually forcing "out-of-context" is more stressful.
> > I think doing it with real domains under load is more realistic.
> > However, the scheduling thing may be equivalent - I just
haven''t
> > looked into it or thought about it.
> >
> > thanks,
> > Dave
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dan Magenheimer [mailto:dan.magenheimer@oracle.com]
> > Sent: Thu 6/12/2008 5:13 PM
> > To: Dave Winchell
> > Subject: RE: xen hpet patch
> >
> > One more thought while waiting for compile and reboot:
> >
> > Am I right that all of the policies are correcting for when
> > a domain "A" is out-of-context?  There''s nothing in
any other
> > domain "B" that can account for any timer loss/gain in
domain
> > "A".  The only reason we are running other domains is to
ensure
> > that domain "A" is sometimes out-of-context, and the more
> > it is out-of-context, the more likely we will observe
> > a problem, correct?
> >
> > If this is true, it doesn''t matter what workload is run
> > in the non-A domains... as long as it is loading the
> > CPU(s), thus ensuring that domain A is sometimes not
> > scheduled on any CPU.
> >
> > And if all this is true, we may not need to run other
> > domains at all... running "xm sched-credit -d A -c 50"
> > should result in domain A being out-of-context at least
> > half the time.
> >
> > Dan
> >>
> >
> 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-14 08:59 UTC

head link

[Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

On 14/6/08 03:20, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
wrote:
> But is there anything else?
> 
> Suppose the credit scheduler were modified to
> optionally schedule random "spurts" when the
> sum of caps was less than the total available
> CPU.  Would you then expect the results to be
> essentially the same?
I wouldn''t expect another domain''s workload to affect the test
domain''s time
synchronisation except so far as the workload affects the domain''s CPU
demand over time. I imagine you could therefore simulate that CPU demand
process inside the scheduler. How hard that is presumably depends how
accurate you want the simulation to be.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Dan Magenheimer

2008-Jun-14 15:16 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

That''s what I thought.  Sorry to belabour, but
that leads to one more question:

If one were to put an appropriately random CPU-only load
on every processor on domain0 (assuming domain0 runs
on all physical processors), then this would presumably
be sufficient to exercise a domain-under-test''s time
synchronization, correct?

Thanks,
Dan
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com
> [mailto:xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com]On Behalf Of Keir Fraser
> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 2:59 AM
> To: dan.magenheimer@oracle.com; Dave Winchell; Ben Guthro; xen-devel
> Subject: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time
> 
> 
> On 14/6/08 03:20, "Dan Magenheimer" 
> <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > But is there anything else?
> >
> > Suppose the credit scheduler were modified to
> > optionally schedule random "spurts" when the
> > sum of caps was less than the total available
> > CPU.  Would you then expect the results to be
> > essentially the same?
> 
> I wouldn''t expect another domain''s workload to affect the
> test domain''s time
> synchronisation except so far as the workload affects the domain''s
CPU
> demand over time. I imagine you could therefore simulate that 
> CPU demand
> process inside the scheduler. How hard that is presumably depends how
> accurate you want the simulation to be.
> 
>  -- Keir
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Xen-devel mailing list
> Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
> http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
> 

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Keir Fraser

2008-Jun-14 15:25 UTC

head link

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

On 14/6/08 16:16, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com>
wrote:
> That''s what I thought.  Sorry to belabour, but
> that leads to one more question:
> 
> If one were to put an appropriately random CPU-only load
> on every processor on domain0 (assuming domain0 runs
> on all physical processors), then this would presumably
> be sufficient to exercise a domain-under-test''s time
> synchronization, correct?
Yes, I reckon that could work pretty well.

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Dan Magenheimer

2008-Jul-01 00:22 UTC

head link

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

> Yes, I reckon that could work pretty well.
> 
>  -- Keir
I''m pretty sure the attached script when run in
domain0 will generate an appropriately random CPU
load on every domain0 vcpu.  For each vcpu, it
randomly eats CPU for a fraction of a second, then
sleeps for the same amount of time, then repeats.
Thus any timer-under-test domain should see
random unscheduled intervals which hopefully
occur at random fractions of its timer tick.

I''ll probably use this for future timer testing,
so let me know if you see problems with this
approach.

Thanks,
Dan

P.S. May be dependent on RH-based dom0.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@eu.citrix.com]
> Sent: Saturday, June 14, 2008 9:25 AM
> 
> <dan.magenheimer@oracle.com> wrote:
> 
> > That''s what I thought.  Sorry to belabour, but
> > that leads to one more question:
> >
> > If one were to put an appropriately random CPU-only load
> > on every processor on domain0 (assuming domain0 runs
> > on all physical processors), then this would presumably
> > be sufficient to exercise a domain-under-test''s time
> > synchronization, correct?
> 
> Yes, I reckon that could work pretty well.
> 
>  -- Keir

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel

Possibly Parallel Threads

Search for more possibly parallel threads

Xen devel - Jun 2008 - Isolation and time

[Xen-devel] Isolation and time

[Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

[Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

RE: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

Re: [Xen-devel] Kernel printk timestamps and walltime drift

[Xen-devel] RE: Isolation and time

[Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

Re: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

RE: [Xen-devel] Re: Isolation and time

Possibly Parallel Threads