qemu-ppc
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC 00/10] hw/mos6522: VIA timer emulation fixes and improvements


From: Mark Cave-Ayland
Subject: Re: [RFC 00/10] hw/mos6522: VIA timer emulation fixes and improvements
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2021 10:10:34 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0

On 24/08/2021 11:09, Finn Thain wrote:

This is a patch series that I started last year. The aim was to try to
get a monotonic clocksource for Linux/m68k guests. That aim hasn't been
achieved yet (for q800 machines) but I'm submitting the patch series as
an RFC because,

  - It does improve 6522 emulation fidelity.

  - It allows Linux/m68k to make use of the additional timer that the
    hardware indeed offers but which QEMU omits. This has several
    benefits for Linux guests [1].

  - I see that Mark has been working on timer emulation issues in his
    github repo [2] and it seems likely that MacOS, NetBSD or A/UX guests
    will also require better 6522 emulation.

To make collaboration easier these patches can also be fetched from
github [3].

On a real Quadra, accesses to the SY6522 chips are slow because they are
synchronous with the 783360 Hz "phase 2" clock. In QEMU, they are slow
only because of the division operation in the timer count calculation.

This patch series improves the fidelity of the emulated chip, but the
price is more division ops. I haven't tried to measure this yet.

The emulated 6522 still deviates from the behaviour of the real thing,
however. For example, two consecutive accesses to a real 6522 timer
counter can never yield the same value. This is not true of the 6522 in
QEMU 6 wherein two consecutive accesses to a timer count register have
been observed to yield the same value.

Linux is not particularly robust in the face of a 6522 that deviates
from the usual behaviour. The problem presently affecting a Linux guest
is that its 'via' clocksource is prone to monotonicity failure. That is,
the clocksource counter can jump backwards. This can be observed by
patching Linux like so:

diff --git a/arch/m68k/mac/via.c b/arch/m68k/mac/via.c
--- a/arch/m68k/mac/via.c
+++ b/arch/m68k/mac/via.c
@@ -606,6 +606,8 @@ void __init via_init_clock(void)
        clocksource_register_hz(&mac_clk, VIA_CLOCK_FREQ);
  }
+static u32 prev_ticks;
+
  static u64 mac_read_clk(struct clocksource *cs)
  {
        unsigned long flags;
@@ -631,6 +633,8 @@ static u64 mac_read_clk(struct clocksource *cs)
        count = count_high << 8;
        ticks = VIA_TIMER_CYCLES - count;
        ticks += clk_offset + clk_total;
+if (ticks < prev_ticks) pr_warn("%s: %u < %u\n", __func__, ticks, prev_ticks);
+prev_ticks = ticks;
        local_irq_restore(flags);
return ticks;

This problem can be partly blamed on a 6522 design limitation, which is
that the timer counter has no overflow register. Hence, if a timer
counter wraps around and the kernel is late to handle the subsequent
interrupt, the kernel can't account for any missed ticks.

On a real Quadra, the kernel mitigates this limitation by minimizing
interrupt latency. But on QEMU, interrupt latency is unbounded. This
can't be mitigated by the guest kernel at all and leads to clock drift.
This can be observed by patching QEMU like so:

diff --git a/hw/misc/mos6522.c b/hw/misc/mos6522.c
--- a/hw/misc/mos6522.c
+++ b/hw/misc/mos6522.c
@@ -379,6 +379,12 @@ void mos6522_write(void *opaque, hwaddr addr, uint64_t 
val, unsigned size)
          s->pcr = val;
          break;
      case VIA_REG_IFR:
+        if (val & T1_INT) {
+            static int64_t last_t1_int_cleared;
+            int64_t now = qemu_clock_get_ns(QEMU_CLOCK_VIRTUAL);
+            if (now - last_t1_int_cleared > 20000000) printf("\t%s: t1 int clear is 
late\n", __func__);
+            last_t1_int_cleared = now;
+        }
          /* reset bits */
          s->ifr &= ~val;
          mos6522_update_irq(s);

This logic asserts that, given that Linux/m68k sets CONFIG_HZ to 100,
the emulator will theoretically see each timer 1 interrupt cleared
within 20 ms of the previous one. But that deadline is often missed on
my QEMU host [4].

On real Mac hardware you could observe the same scenario if a high
priority interrupt were to sufficiently delay the timer interrupt
handler. (This is the reason why the VIA1 interrupt priority gets
increased from level 1 to level 5 when running on Quadras.)

Anyway, for now, the clocksource monotonicity problem in Linux/mac68k
guests is still unresolved. Nonetheless, I think this patch series does
improve the situation.

[1] I've also been working on some improvements to Linux/m68k based on
Arnd Bergman's clockevent RFC patch,
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-m68k/20201008154651.1901126-14-arnd@arndb.de/
The idea is to add a oneshot clockevent device by making use of the
second VIA1 timer. This approach should help mitigate the clock drift
problem as well as assist with GENERIC_CLOCKEVENTS adoption.

[2] https://github.com/mcayland/qemu/commits/q800.upstream

[3] https://github.com/fthain/qemu/commits/via-timer/

[4] This theoretical 20 ms deadline is not missed prior to every
backwards jump in the clocksource counter. AFAICT, that's because the
true deadline is somewhat shorter than 20 ms.


Finn Thain (10):
   hw/mos6522: Remove get_load_time() methods and functions
   hw/mos6522: Remove get_counter_value() methods and functions
   hw/mos6522: Remove redundant mos6522_timer1_update() calls
   hw/mos6522: Rename timer callback functions
   hw/mos6522: Don't clear T1 interrupt flag on latch write
   hw/mos6522: Implement oneshot mode
   hw/mos6522: Fix initial timer counter reload
   hw/mos6522: Call mos6522_update_irq() when appropriate
   hw/mos6522: Avoid using discrepant QEMU clock values
   hw/mos6522: Synchronize timer interrupt and timer counter

  hw/misc/mos6522.c         | 232 +++++++++++++++++---------------------
  hw/misc/trace-events      |   2 +-
  include/hw/misc/mos6522.h |   9 ++
  3 files changed, 113 insertions(+), 130 deletions(-)

I just wanted to say that this patchset is obviously the result of a huge amount of effort trying to figure out why the clock in Linux/m68k appears to jump backwards in QEMU, and certainly references conditions in real hardware that is not explained in the datasheet in sufficient detail.

From my perspective I'd suggest tackling the 2 main issues first: 1) ensuring that the clock is monotonic and 2) adding the one shot timer mode. The other fixes/updates can then be layered on top once we're confident that the underlying timing mechanism works not just for Linux/m68k but also for cuda on PPC.

I'm also slightly suspicious of the if() blocks introduced in mos6522_read() introduce via commit cd8843ff25d ("mos6522: fix T1 and T2 timers").

In your comments above you mention:

> On real Mac hardware you could observe the same scenario if a high
> priority interrupt were to sufficiently delay the timer interrupt
> handler. (This is the reason why the VIA1 interrupt priority gets
> increased from level 1 to level 5 when running on Quadras.)

This isn't currently true for QEMU: if you look at hw/m68k/q800.c you can see that the VIA interrupts are hard-wired to levels 1 and 2 respectively. You can change the VIA1 interrupt so it is routed to level 5 instead of level 1 with the following diff:

diff --git a/hw/m68k/q800.c b/hw/m68k/q800.c
index ac0a13060b..dc8dbe5c6f 100644
--- a/hw/m68k/q800.c
+++ b/hw/m68k/q800.c
@@ -281,7 +281,7 @@ static void q800_init(MachineState *machine)
     sysbus_realize_and_unref(sysbus, &error_fatal);
     sysbus_mmio_map(sysbus, 0, VIA_BASE);
     qdev_connect_gpio_out_named(DEVICE(sysbus), "irq", 0,
-                                qdev_get_gpio_in(glue, 0));
+                                qdev_get_gpio_in(glue, 4));
     qdev_connect_gpio_out_named(DEVICE(sysbus), "irq", 1,
                                 qdev_get_gpio_in(glue, 1));

The q800.upstream branch goes further and implements the dynamic interrupt routing required by A/UX but the above should be a basic test to see if the increased priority helps with your timing issue at all.


ATB,

Mark.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]