Re: 答复: [PATCH 0/5] mc146818rtc: fix Windows VM clock faster

[Hailiang Zhang <zhang.zhanghailiang@huawei.com>]

On 2017/4/13 17:18, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>
> On 04/13/2017 05:05 PM, Zhanghailiang wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> -----邮件原件-----
>> 发件人: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org] 代表 Xiao Guangrong
>> 发送时间: 2017年4月13日 16:53
>> 收件人: Paolo Bonzini; mst@redhat.com; mtosatti@redhat.com
>> 抄送: qemu-devel@nongnu.org; kvm@vger.kernel.org; yunfangtai@tencent.com; Xiao Guangrong
>> 主题: Re: [PATCH 0/5] mc146818rtc: fix Windows VM clock faster
>>
>>
>>
>> On 04/13/2017 04:39 PM, Xiao Guangrong wrote:
>>>
>>> On 04/13/2017 02:37 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 12/04/2017 17:51, guangrong.xiao@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> The root cause is that the clock will be lost if the periodic period
>>>>> is changed as currently code counts the next periodic time like this:
>>>>>        next_irq_clock = (cur_clock & ~(period - 1)) + period;
>>>>>
>>>>> consider the case if cur_clock = 0x11FF and period = 0x100, then the
>>>>> next_irq_clock is 0x1200, however, there is only 1 clock left to
>>>>> trigger the next irq. Unfortunately, Windows guests (at least
>>>>> Windows7) change the period very frequently if it runs the attached
>>>>> code, so that the lost clock is accumulated, the wall-time become
>>>>> faster and faster
>>>> Very interesting.
>>>>
>>> Yes, indeed.
>>>
>>>> However, I think that the above should be exactly how the RTC should
>>>> work.  The original RTC circuit had 22 divider stages (see page 13 of
>>>> the datasheet[1], at the bottom right), and the periodic interrupt
>>>> taps the rising edge of one of the dividers (page 16, second
>>>> paragraph).  The datasheet also never mentions a comparator being
>>>> used to trigger the periodic interrupts.
>>>>
>>> That was my thought before, however, after more test, i am not sure if
>>> re-configuring RegA changes these divider stages internal...
>>>
>>>> Have you checked that this Windows bug doesn't happen on real
>>>> hardware too?  Or is the combination of driftfix=slew and changing
>>>> periods that is a problem?
>>>>
>>> I have two physical windows 7 machines, both of them have
>>> 'useplatformclock = off' and ntp disabled, the wall time is really
>>> accurate. The difference is that the physical machines are using Intel
>>> Q87 LPC chipset which is mc146818rtc compatible. However, on VM, the
>>> issue is easily be reproduced just in ~10 mins.
>>>
>>> Our test mostly focus on 'driftfix=slew' and after this patchset the
>>> time is accurate and stable.
>>>
>>> I will do the test for dropping 'slew' and see what will happen...
>>>
>>> Well, the time is easily observed to be faster if 'driftfix=slew' is not used. :(
>> You mean, it only fixes the one case which with the ' driftfix=slew ' is used ?
> No. for both.
>
>> We encountered this problem too, I have tried to fix it long time ago.
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2016-03/msg06937.html.
>> (It seems that your solution is more useful)
>> But it seems that it is impossible to fix, we need to emulate the behaviors of real hardware,
>> but we didn't find any clear description about it. And it seems that other virtualization platforms
> That is the issue, the hardware spec does not detail how the clock is
> counted when the timer interval is changed. What we can do at this time
> is that speculate it from the behaviors. Current RTC is completely
> unusable anyway.
>
>
>> have this problem too:
>> VMware:
>> https://www.vmware.com/files/pdf/Timekeeping-In-VirtualMachines.pdf
>> Heper-v:
>> https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/virtual_pc_guy/2010/11/19/time-synchronization-in-hyper-v/
> Hmm, slower clock is understandable, does really the Windows7 on hyperV
> have faster clock? Did you meet it?

I don't know, we didn't test it, besides, I'd like to know how long did your testcase run before
you judge it is stable with 'driftfix=slew'  option? (My previous patch can't fix it completely but
only narrows the gap between timer in guest and real timer.)

Hailiang
>
> .
>