similar to: [patch 00/11] x86/vdso: Cleanups, simmplifications and CLOCK_TAI support

Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime() implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet another slightly different copy of the same code. Especially the extended switch case is problematic as the compiler tends to generate a jump table which then requires to use retpolines. If jump tables are disabled it adds yet another conditional to the existing

Hi, Hyper-V TSC page clocksource is suitable for vDSO, however, the protocol defined by the hypervisor is different from VCLOCK_PVCLOCK. I implemented the required support re-using pvclock_page VVAR. Simple sysbench test shows the following results: Before: # time sysbench --test=memory --max-requests=500000 run ... real 1m22.618s user 0m50.193s sys 0m32.268s After: # time sysbench

Hi, Hyper-V TSC page clocksource is suitable for vDSO, however, the protocol defined by the hypervisor is different from VCLOCK_PVCLOCK. I implemented the required support re-using pvclock_page VVAR. Simple sysbench test shows the following results: Before: # time sysbench --test=memory --max-requests=500000 run ... real 1m22.618s user 0m50.193s sys 0m32.268s After: # time sysbench

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets at redhat.com> wrote: > Hyper-V TSC page clocksource is suitable for vDSO, however, the protocol > defined by the hypervisor is different from VCLOCK_PVCLOCK. Implement the > required support re-using pvclock_page VVAR as VCLOCK_PVCLOCK is mutually > exclusive with VCLOCK_HVCLOCK at run time. > > Signed-off-by:

On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:07 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets at redhat.com> wrote: > Hyper-V TSC page clocksource is suitable for vDSO, however, the protocol > defined by the hypervisor is different from VCLOCK_PVCLOCK. Implement the > required support re-using pvclock_page VVAR as VCLOCK_PVCLOCK is mutually > exclusive with VCLOCK_HVCLOCK at run time. > > Signed-off-by:

Hi, Hyper-V TSC page clocksource is suitable for vDSO, however, the protocol defined by the hypervisor is different from VCLOCK_PVCLOCK. Implemented the required support. Simple sysbench test shows the following results: Before: # time sysbench --test=memory --max-requests=500000 run ... real 1m22.618s user 0m50.193s sys 0m32.268s After: # time sysbench --test=memory

Hi, Hyper-V TSC page clocksource is suitable for vDSO, however, the protocol defined by the hypervisor is different from VCLOCK_PVCLOCK. Implemented the required support. Simple sysbench test shows the following results: Before: # time sysbench --test=memory --max-requests=500000 run ... real 1m22.618s user 0m50.193s sys 0m32.268s After: # time sysbench --test=memory

Hi, merge window is about to close so I hope it's OK to make another try here. Changes since v2: - Add explicit READ_ONCE() to not rely on 'volatile' [Andy Lutomirski] - rdtsc() -> rdtsc_ordered() [Andy Lutomirski] - virt_rmb() -> smp_rmb() [Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski] Thomas, Andy, it seems the only blocker for the series was the ambiguity with TSC page read algorithm.

Hi, merge window is about to close so I hope it's OK to make another try here. Changes since v2: - Add explicit READ_ONCE() to not rely on 'volatile' [Andy Lutomirski] - rdtsc() -> rdtsc_ordered() [Andy Lutomirski] - virt_rmb() -> smp_rmb() [Thomas Gleixner, Andy Lutomirski] Thomas, Andy, it seems the only blocker for the series was the ambiguity with TSC page read algorithm.

Hi, while we're still waiting for a definitive ACK from Microsoft that the algorithm is good for SMP case (as we can't prevent the code in vdso from migrating between CPUs) I'd like to send v2 with some modifications to keep the discussion going. Changes since v1: - Document the TSC page reading protocol [Thomas Gleixner]. - Separate the TSC page reading code from

Hi, while we're still waiting for a definitive ACK from Microsoft that the algorithm is good for SMP case (as we can't prevent the code in vdso from migrating between CPUs) I'd like to send v2 with some modifications to keep the discussion going. Changes since v1: - Document the TSC page reading protocol [Thomas Gleixner]. - Separate the TSC page reading code from

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 5:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > With the storage array in place it's now trivial to support CLOCK_TAI in > the vdso. Instead of extending the array to accomodate CLOCK_TAI, make use > of the fact that: > > - CLOCK ids are set in stone > - CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME is never going to be supported in the VDSO so >

> On Sep 14, 2018, at 5:50 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> wrote: > > With the storage array in place it's now trivial to support CLOCK_TAI in > the vdso. Instead of extending the array to accomodate CLOCK_TAI, make use > of the fact that: > > - CLOCK ids are set in stone > - CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME is never going to be supported in the VDSO so >

With the storage array in place it's now trivial to support CLOCK_TAI in the vdso. Instead of extending the array to accomodate CLOCK_TAI, make use of the fact that: - CLOCK ids are set in stone - CLOCK_THREAD_CPUTIME is never going to be supported in the VDSO so the array slot 3 is unused - CLOCK_TAI is id 11 which results in 3 when masked with 0x3 Add the mask to the basetime array

The code flow for the vclocks is convoluted as it requires the vclocks which can be invalidated separately from the vsyscall_gtod_data sequence to store the fact in a separate variable. That's inefficient. Restructure the code so the vclock readout returns cycles and the conversion to nanoseconds is handled at the call site. If the clock gets invalidated or vclock is already VCLOCK_NONE,

Dereferencing gtod->cycle_last all over the place and foing the cycles < last comparison in the vclock read functions generates horrible code. Doing it at the call site is much better and gains a few cycles both for TSC and pvclock. Caveat: This adds the comparison to the hyperv vclock as well, but I have no way to test that. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <tglx at linutronix.de> ---

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Your memory serves you right. That's indeed observable on CPUs which > > > lack TSC_ADJUST. > > > > But, if the gtod code can observe this, then why doesn't the code that > > checks the sync? > > Because it depends where the involved CPUs are in the

On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > Your memory serves you right. That's indeed observable on CPUs which > > > lack TSC_ADJUST. > > > > But, if the gtod code can observe this, then why doesn't the code that > > checks the sync? > > Because it depends where the involved CPUs are in the

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_TSCPAGE > +static notrace u64 vread_hvclock(int *mode) > +{ > + const struct ms_hyperv_tsc_page *tsc_pg = > + (const struct ms_hyperv_tsc_page *)&hvclock_page; > + u64 sequence, scale, offset, current_tick, cur_tsc; > + > + while (1) { > + sequence = READ_ONCE(tsc_pg->tsc_sequence); > + if

On Thu, 9 Feb 2017, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote: > +#ifdef CONFIG_HYPERV_TSCPAGE > +static notrace u64 vread_hvclock(int *mode) > +{ > + const struct ms_hyperv_tsc_page *tsc_pg = > + (const struct ms_hyperv_tsc_page *)&hvclock_page; > + u64 sequence, scale, offset, current_tick, cur_tsc; > + > + while (1) { > + sequence = READ_ONCE(tsc_pg->tsc_sequence); > + if