Bug#599161: xen-linux-system-2.6.32-5-xen-amd64: Clock moved forward 50 minutes, caused Xen HVM domU restart
In addition, I received the below from "James Song" but when I queried
what it changed he did not respond, so I haven't tried it..
"added timer_mode =2 and tsc_mode = 1 and viridian=1 into your
configure file."
On Tue, Jan 04, 2011 at 04:56:00PM +0000, Mark Adams wrote:
> Hi,
>
> No, unfortunately not. I just suffered it again aswell over the
> Christmas break. Let me know if you find any fix.
>
> Regards,
> Mark
>
> On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 12:50:26PM +0100, Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 06, 2010 at 12:05:18PM +0100, Mark Adams wrote:
> >
> > > > > As this is when the clock went from 18:00 to 18:50 and started the chain
> > > > > of events (restarted the 2008 domU). Any ideas why this log occurred?
> > > >
> > > > The TSC appeared to go backwards by a fairly significant amount, which
> > > > has upset the kernel.
> > > >
> > > > The behaviour of the virtual TSC as seen by an HVM guest is controlled
> > > > by a combination of the tsc_mode setting in your domain configuration
> > > > and, I think, by the features of your specific hardware (some have
> > > > constant rate TSC, others advertise varying levels of synchronisation
> > > > between cores etc). It's then up to the guest kernel whether it even
> > > > uses TSC as a timesource at all and how it handles instability etc and
> > > > how it derives other time sources (such as the wallclock time) from it.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry this isn't more helpful, but as I say you will probably get better
> > > > answers on one of the Xen mailing lists.
> > >
> > > Hi Ian,
> > >
> > > Thanks for your notes. I've already tried the xen-users list so I will
> > > try xen-devel to see if I can glean any more information about my issue.
> > > I will update the report here when I get any more information.
> >
> > Did you contact them? From what I read from the bug report so far, running
> > an NTP client in the HVM host should suffice.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Moritz
>
Reply to: