Date: Fri, 10 Apr 2015 23:41:52 -0700 From: Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> To: Neel Natu <neelnatu@gmail.com> Cc: "freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org" <freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: bhyve clock problem, solved by kern.timecounter.hardware="TSC-low" in /etc/sysctl.conf Message-ID: <5528C230.8070406@redbarn.org> In-Reply-To: <CAFgRE9EqgP%2B4WZdY3%2BJU3dGDTujgwpK5VD9Xd=1y2T-9jssyug@mail.gmail.com> References: <552809F4.6070206@redbarn.org> <CAFgRE9EqgP%2B4WZdY3%2BJU3dGDTujgwpK5VD9Xd=1y2T-9jssyug@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Neel Natu wrote: > Hi Paul, > > On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 10:35 AM, Paul Vixie <paul@redbarn.org> wrote: >> ... >> >> can we make TSC-low the default? >> > > The choice of using the TSC is not without issues: > > - As rstone@ points out the TSCs need to be synchronized across physical cpus. ok, then the reason i'm not seeing this is i have a single 6-core CPU. (ntpd would complain about clocks going backward.) > - Depending on system load the guest's estimate of the TSC frequency > might be way off the mark. i see what you mean. > So, in a way the HPET or the ACPI time counters are better since both > the host and guest agree on the frequency. But it seems there is > either an issue with the emulation or an artifact due to the > guest-to-host round trip time. to be fair, some of my bhyve's ran fast (so, positive adjustments by ntpd), some ran slow (negative adjustments). i did not try every possible timecounter hardware; TSC-low fixed it, so i stopped. > I have been doing experiments but don't have anything conclusive yet. thanks for looking into it. paravirtualization (kvm-clock or some equivalent) seems desirable. -- Paul Vixie
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?5528C230.8070406>