On Tue, 2020-09-22 at 14:50 +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> On 21/09/20 18:23, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> > Avoid "should" in code comments and describe what the code is doing, not
> > what
> > it should be doing. The only exception for this is when the code has a
> > known
> > flaw/gap, e.g. "KVM should do X, but because of Y, KVM actually does Z".
> >
> > > + * return it's real L1 value so that its restore will be
> > > correct.
> > s/it's/its
> >
> > Perhaps add "unconditionally" somewhere, since arch.tsc_offset can also
> > contain
> > the L1 value. E.g.
> >
> > * Unconditionally return L1's TSC offset on userspace reads
> > * so that userspace reads and writes always operate on L1's
> > * offset, e.g. to ensure deterministic behavior for migration.
> > */
> >
>
> Technically the host need not restore MSR_IA32_TSC at all. This follows
> the idea of the discussion with Oliver Upton about transmitting the
> state of the kvmclock heuristics to userspace, which include a (TSC,
> CLOCK_MONOTONIC) pair to transmit the offset to the destination. All
> that needs to be an L1 value is then the TSC value in that pair.
>
> I'm a bit torn over this patch. On one hand it's an easy solution, on
> the other hand it's... just wrong if KVM_GET_MSR is used for e.g.
> debugging the guest.
Could you explain why though? After my patch, the KVM_GET_MSR will consistently
read the L1 TSC, just like all other MSRs as I explained. I guess for debugging,
this should work?
The fact that TSC reads with the guest offset is a nice exception made for the
guests,
that insist on reading this msr without inteception and not using rdtsc.
Best regards,
Maxim Levitsky
>
> I'll talk to Maxim and see if he can work on the kvmclock migration stuff.
>
> Paolo
>
