[RFC PATCH v9 7/8] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64

Jianyong Wu Jianyong.Wu at arm.com
Fri Jan 10 02:15:07 PST 2020


Hi Marc,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> Sent: Thursday, January 9, 2020 5:24 PM
> To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu at arm.com>
> Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org; yangbo.lu at nxp.com; john.stultz at linaro.org;
> tglx at linutronix.de; pbonzini at redhat.com; sean.j.christopherson at intel.com;
> richardcochran at gmail.com; Mark Rutland <Mark.Rutland at arm.com>;
> will at kernel.org; Suzuki Poulose <Suzuki.Poulose at arm.com>; Steven Price
> <Steven.Price at arm.com>; linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm-
> kernel at lists.infradead.org; kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu;
> kvm at vger.kernel.org; Steve Capper <Steve.Capper at arm.com>; Kaly Xin
> <Kaly.Xin at arm.com>; Justin He <Justin.He at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 7/8] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64
> 
> On 2020-01-09 05:59, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> > Hi Marc,
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Marc Zyngier <maz at kernel.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, January 7, 2020 5:29 PM
> >> To: Jianyong Wu <Jianyong.Wu at arm.com>
> >> Cc: netdev at vger.kernel.org; yangbo.lu at nxp.com;
> >> john.stultz at linaro.org; tglx at linutronix.de; pbonzini at redhat.com;
> >> sean.j.christopherson at intel.com; richardcochran at gmail.com; Mark
> >> Rutland <Mark.Rutland at arm.com>; will at kernel.org; Suzuki Poulose
> >> <Suzuki.Poulose at arm.com>; Steven Price <Steven.Price at arm.com>;
> >> linux-kernel at vger.kernel.org; linux-arm- kernel at lists.infradead.org;
> >> kvmarm at lists.cs.columbia.edu; kvm at vger.kernel.org; Steve Capper
> >> <Steve.Capper at arm.com>; Kaly Xin <Kaly.Xin at arm.com>; Justin He
> >> <Justin.He at arm.com>; nd <nd at arm.com>
> >> Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v9 7/8] ptp: arm64: Enable ptp_kvm for arm64
> >>
> >> On 2019-12-10 03:40, Jianyong Wu wrote:
> >> > Currently in arm64 virtualization environment, there is no
> >> > mechanism to keep time sync between guest and host. Time in guest
> >> > will drift compared with host after boot up as they may both use
> >> > third party time sources to correct their time respectively. The
> >> > time deviation will be in order of milliseconds but some scenarios
> >> > ask for higher time precision, like in cloud envirenment, we want
> >> > all the VMs running in the host aquire the same level accuracy from host
> clock.
> >> >
> >> > Use of kvm ptp clock, which choose the host clock source clock as a
> >> > reference clock to sync time clock between guest and host has been
> >> > adopted by x86 which makes the time sync order from milliseconds to
> >> > nanoseconds.
> >> >
> >> > This patch enable kvm ptp on arm64 and we get the similar clock
> >> > drift as found with x86 with kvm ptp.
> >> >
> >> > Test result comparison between with kvm ptp and without it in arm64
> >> > are as follows. This test derived from the result of command
> >> > 'chronyc sources'. we should take more cure of the last sample
> >> > column which shows the offset between the local clock and the
> >> > source at the last measurement.
> >> >
> >> > no kvm ptp in guest:
> >> > MS Name/IP address   Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
> >> >
> >>
> ==========================================================
> >> ==============
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    13  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    21  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    29  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    37  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    45  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    53  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    61  +1040us[+1581us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377     4   -130us[ +796us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    12   -130us[ +796us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> > ^* dns1.synet.edu.cn      2   6   377    20   -130us[ +796us] +/-
> >> > 21ms
> >> >
> >> > in host:
> >> > MS Name/IP address   Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
> >> >
> >>
> ==========================================================
> >> ==============
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377    72   -470us[ -603us] +/-
> >> > 18ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377    92   -470us[ -603us] +/-
> >> > 18ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377   112   -470us[ -603us] +/-
> >> > 18ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377     2   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377    22   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377    43   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377    63   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377    83   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377   103   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> > ^* 120.25.115.20          2   7   377   123   +872ns[-6808ns] +/-
> >> > 17ms
> >> >
> >> > The dns1.synet.edu.cn is the network reference clock for guest and
> >> > 120.25.115.20 is the network reference clock for host. we can't get
> >> > the clock error between guest and host directly, but a roughly
> >> > estimated value will be in order of hundreds of us to ms.
> >> >
> >> > with kvm ptp in guest:
> >> > chrony has been disabled in host to remove the disturb by network
> >> > clock.
> >> >
> >> > MS Name/IP address         Stratum Poll Reach LastRx Last sample
> >> >
> >>
> ==========================================================
> >> ==============
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377     8     -7ns[   +1ns] +/-
> >> > 3ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377     8     +1ns[  +16ns] +/-
> >> > 3ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377     6     -4ns[   -0ns] +/-
> >> > 6ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377     6     -8ns[  -12ns] +/-
> >> > 5ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377     5     +2ns[   +4ns] +/-
> >> > 4ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377    13     +2ns[   +4ns] +/-
> >> > 4ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377    12     -4ns[   -6ns] +/-
> >> > 4ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377    11     -8ns[  -11ns] +/-
> >> > 6ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377    10    -14ns[  -20ns] +/-
> >> > 4ns
> >> > * PHC0                    0   3   377     8     +4ns[   +5ns] +/-
> >> > 4ns
> >> >
> >> > The PHC0 is the ptp clock which choose the host clock as its source
> >> > clock. So we can be sure to say that the clock error between host
> >> > and guest is in order of ns.
> >> >
> >> > Signed-off-by: Jianyong Wu <jianyong.wu at arm.com>
> >> > ---
> >> >  drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c | 22 ++++++++++++
> >> >  drivers/ptp/Kconfig                  |  2 +-
> >> >  drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm_arm64.c          | 53
> >> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >> >  3 files changed, 76 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)  create mode
> >> > 100644 drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm_arm64.c
> >> >
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> >> > b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> >> > index 277846decd33..72260b66f02e 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> >> > +++ b/drivers/clocksource/arm_arch_timer.c
> >> > @@ -1636,3 +1636,25 @@ static int __init
> >> > arch_timer_acpi_init(struct acpi_table_header *table)  }
> >> > TIMER_ACPI_DECLARE(arch_timer, ACPI_SIG_GTDT,
> >> > arch_timer_acpi_init);  #endif
> >> > +
> >> > +#if IS_ENABLED(CONFIG_PTP_1588_CLOCK_KVM)
> >> > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> >> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_get_crosststamp(unsigned long *cycle, struct
> >> > timespec64 *ts,
> >> > +			      struct clocksource **cs)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	struct arm_smccc_res hvc_res;
> >> > +	ktime_t ktime_overall;
> >> > +
> >> > +
> >> 	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FU
> >> NC_ID, &hvc_res);
> >> > +	if ((long)(hvc_res.a0) < 0)
> >> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> > +
> >> > +	ktime_overall = hvc_res.a0 << 32 | hvc_res.a1;
> >> > +	*ts = ktime_to_timespec64(ktime_overall);
> >> > +	*cycle = hvc_res.a2 << 32 | hvc_res.a3;
> >>
> >> So why isn't that just a read of the virtual counter, given that what
> >> you do in the hypervisor seems to be "cntpct - cntvoff"?
> >>
> >> What am I missing here?
> >>
> > We need get clock time and counter cycle at the same time, so we can't
> > just read virtual counter at guest and must get it from host.
> 
> See my comment in my reply to patch #6: *Must* seems like a very strong
> word, and you don't explain *why* that's better than just computing the
> total hypercall cost. Hint: given the frequency of the counter (in the few MHz
> range) vs the frequency of a CPU (in the multiple GHz range, and with an IPC
> close enough to 1), I doubt that you'll see the counter making much progress
> across a hypercall.
> 
Sorry, I will avoid to use those strong words.

It's really the case that the hypercall won't across cycle in general. But sometimes, kernel preempt 
may happen in the middle of the hypercall which we can't assume how long before schedule back. so it's better capture them
together at the same time.

> >
> >> > +	*cs = &clocksource_counter;
> >> > +
> >> > +	return 0;
> >> > +}
> >> > +EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(kvm_arch_ptp_get_crosststamp);
> >> > +#endif
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/ptp/Kconfig b/drivers/ptp/Kconfig index
> >> > 9b8fee5178e8..3c31ff8eb05f 100644
> >> > --- a/drivers/ptp/Kconfig
> >> > +++ b/drivers/ptp/Kconfig
> >> > @@ -110,7 +110,7 @@ config PTP_1588_CLOCK_PCH  config
> >> > PTP_1588_CLOCK_KVM
> >> >  	tristate "KVM virtual PTP clock"
> >> >  	depends on PTP_1588_CLOCK
> >> > -	depends on KVM_GUEST && X86
> >> > +	depends on KVM_GUEST && X86 || ARM64 && ARM_ARCH_TIMER
> >> >  	default y
> >> >  	help
> >> >  	  This driver adds support for using kvm infrastructure as a PTP
> >> > diff --git a/drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm_arm64.c
> >> > b/drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm_arm64.c new file mode 100644 index
> >> > 000000000000..f3f957117865
> >> > --- /dev/null
> >> > +++ b/drivers/ptp/ptp_kvm_arm64.c
> >> > @@ -0,0 +1,53 @@
> >> > +// SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0-only
> >> > +/*
> >> > + *  Virtual PTP 1588 clock for use with KVM guests
> >> > + *  Copyright (C) 2019 ARM Ltd.
> >> > + *  All Rights Reserved
> >> > + */
> >> > +
> >> > +#include <linux/kernel.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/err.h>
> >> > +#include <asm/hypervisor.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/module.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/psci.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/arm-smccc.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/timecounter.h>
> >> > +#include <linux/sched/clock.h>
> >> > +#include <asm/arch_timer.h>
> >> > +
> >> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_init(void)
> >> > +{
> >> > +	struct arm_smccc_res hvc_res;
> >> > +
> >> > +
> >> 	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FU
> >> NC_ID,
> >> > +			     &hvc_res);
> >> > +	if ((long)(hvc_res.a0) < 0)
> >> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> > +
> >> > +	return 0;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_generic(struct timespec64 *ts,
> >> > +				   struct arm_smccc_res *hvc_res) {
> >> > +	ktime_t ktime_overall;
> >> > +
> >> > +
> >> 	arm_smccc_1_1_invoke(ARM_SMCCC_VENDOR_HYP_KVM_PTP_FU
> >> NC_ID,
> >> > +				  hvc_res);
> >> > +	if ((long)(hvc_res->a0) < 0)
> >> > +		return -EOPNOTSUPP;
> >> > +
> >> > +	ktime_overall = hvc_res->a0 << 32 | hvc_res->a1;
> >> > +	*ts = ktime_to_timespec64(ktime_overall);
> >> > +
> >> > +	return 0;
> >> > +}
> >> > +
> >> > +int kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock(struct timespec64 *ts) {
> >> > +	struct arm_smccc_res hvc_res;
> >> > +
> >> > +	kvm_arch_ptp_get_clock_generic(ts, &hvc_res);
> >> > +
> >> > +	return 0;
> >> > +}
> >>
> >> I also wonder why this is all arm64 specific, while everything should
> >> also work just fine on 32bit.
> >>
> > ptp_kvm is a feature for cloud computing to keep time consistency from
> > container to container and to host on server,
> 
> Cloud computing? Never heard of that. Will probably never catch on.
> 
Eh...

> > So we focus it on arm64. Also I have never tested it on arm32 machine
> > ( we lack of arm32 machine)
> 
> I'm sure your employer can provide you with such a box. I can probably even
> tell you which cupboard they are stored in... ;-)
> 
I'm working on building environment for arm32 from now.

> > Do you think it's necessary to enable ptp_kvm on arm32? If so, I can
> > do that.
> 
> I can't see why we wouldn't, given that it should be a zero effort task (none
> of the code here is arch specific).

Ok, I will test it on arm32.
By the way, does nested virtualization diff between arm64 and arm32?

Thanks
Jianyong
> 
> Thanks,
> 
>          M.
> --
> Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...



More information about the linux-arm-kernel mailing list