[PATCH v7 5/6] KVM: x86: Refactor tsc synchronization code

[Oliver Upton]

On Thu, Sep 2, 2021 at 12:21 PM Sean Christopherson <seanjc at google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Aug 16, 2021, Oliver Upton wrote:
> > Refactor kvm_synchronize_tsc to make a new function that allows callers
> > to specify TSC parameters (offset, value, nanoseconds, etc.) explicitly
> > for the sake of participating in TSC synchronization.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Oliver Upton <oupton at google.com>
> > ---
> > +     struct kvm *kvm = vcpu->kvm;
> > +     bool already_matched;
> > +
> > +     lockdep_assert_held(&kvm->arch.tsc_write_lock);
> > +
> > +     already_matched =
> > +            (vcpu->arch.this_tsc_generation == kvm->arch.cur_tsc_generation);
> > +
>
> ...
>
> > +     if (!matched) {
> > +             /*
> > +              * We split periods of matched TSC writes into generations.
> > +              * For each generation, we track the original measured
> > +              * nanosecond time, offset, and write, so if TSCs are in
> > +              * sync, we can match exact offset, and if not, we can match
> > +              * exact software computation in compute_guest_tsc()
> > +              *
> > +              * These values are tracked in kvm->arch.cur_xxx variables.
> > +              */
> > +             kvm->arch.cur_tsc_generation++;
> > +             kvm->arch.cur_tsc_nsec = ns;
> > +             kvm->arch.cur_tsc_write = tsc;
> > +             kvm->arch.cur_tsc_offset = offset;
> > +
> > +             spin_lock(&kvm->arch.pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
> > +             kvm->arch.nr_vcpus_matched_tsc = 0;
> > +     } else if (!already_matched) {
> > +             spin_lock(&kvm->arch.pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
> > +             kvm->arch.nr_vcpus_matched_tsc++;
> > +     }
> > +
> > +     kvm_track_tsc_matching(vcpu);
> > +     spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
>
> This unlock is imbalanced if matched and already_matched are both true.  It's not
> immediately obvious that that _can't_ happen, and if it truly can't happen then
> conditionally locking is pointless (because it's not actually conditional).
>
> The previous code took the lock unconditionally, I don't see a strong argument
> to change that, e.g. holding it for a few extra cycles while kvm->arch.cur_tsc_*
> are updated is unlikely to be noticable.

We may have gone full circle here :-) You had said it was confusing to
hold the lock when updating kvm->arch.cur_tsc_* a while back. I do
still agree with that sentiment, but the conditional locking is odd.

> If you really want to delay taking the locking, you could do
>
>         if (!matched) {
>                 kvm->arch.cur_tsc_generation++;
>                 kvm->arch.cur_tsc_nsec = ns;
>                 kvm->arch.cur_tsc_write = data;
>                 kvm->arch.cur_tsc_offset = offset;
>         }
>
>         spin_lock(&kvm->arch.pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);
>         if (!matched)
>                 kvm->arch.nr_vcpus_matched_tsc = 0;
>         else if (!already_matched)
>                 kvm->arch.nr_vcpus_matched_tsc++;
>         spin_unlock(&kvm->arch.pvclock_gtod_sync_lock);

This seems the most readable, making it clear what is guarded and what
is not. I'll probably go this route.

--
Thanks,
Oliver