On Tue, 2017-10-10 at 14:48 +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 02:42:01PM +0200, Stanislaw Gruszka wrote:
> > > > + u64 steal, steal_time;
> > > > + s64 steal_delta;
> > > > +
> > > > + steal_time =
> > > > paravirt_steal_clock(smp_processor_id());
> > > > + steal = steal_delta = steal_time - this_rq()-
> > > > >prev_steal_time;
> > > > +
> > > > + if (unlikely(steal_delta < 0)) {
> > > > + this_rq()->prev_steal_time =
> > > > steal_time;
> >
> > I don't think setting prev_steal_time to smaller value is right
> > thing to do.
> >
> > Beside, I don't think we need to check for overflow condition for
> > cputime variables (it will happen after 279 years :-). So instead
> > of introducing signed steal_delta variable I would just add
> > below check, which should be sufficient to fix the problem:
> >
> > if (unlikely(steal <= this_rq()->prev_steal_time))
> > return 0;
>
> How about you just fix up paravirt_steal_time() on migration and not
> muck with the users ?
Not just migration, either. CPU hotplug is another time to fix up
the steal time.
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xen.org
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
