Extending the context we have:
> if (vcpus_matched && gtod->clock.vclock_mode == VCLOCK_TSC)
> if (!ka->use_master_clock)
> do_request = 1;
>
> - if (!vcpus_matched && ka->use_master_clock)
> + if (ka->use_master_clock)
> do_request = 1;
>
> if (do_request)
> kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_MASTERCLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
The patch also makes the previous "if (!ka->use_master_clock)" redundant.
If you enter the first "if", do_request will be 1 independent of
ka->use_master_clock. So you should also drop that one, and possibly
rewrite it simply like this:
if ((vcpus_matched && gtod->clock.vclock_mode == VCLOCK_TSC) ||
ka->use_master_clock)
kvm_make_request(KVM_REQ_MASTERCLOCK_UPDATE, vcpu);
But this brings the question: what is vclock_mode in your case? If it
is VCLOCK_TSC, are you sure that the bug is fixed because you modified
the second "if", or could it be fixed also by removing instead the
"if (!ka->use_master_clock)"? This would leave the optimization in the
case "!vcpus_matched && ka->use_master_clock". Or is the optimization
always invalid?
A different way to state the same question: can you explain the
resulting condition
((vcpus_matched && gtod->clock.vclock_mode == VCLOCK_TSC) ||
ka->use_master_clock)
? Please add a comment to kvm_track_tsc_matching that clarifies this
logic.
Paolo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
