From: "Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@rjwysocki.net>
To: joeyli <jlee@suse.com>
Cc: Julian Wollrath <jwollrath@web.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
x86@kernel.org, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Lee@linutronix.de,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [RESEND] Fast TSC calibration fails with v3.14-rc1 and later
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 12:20:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1902317.cSAIh6fs84@vostro.rjw.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1394596807.26565.135.camel@linux-s257.site>
On Wednesday, March 12, 2014 12:00:07 PM joeyli wrote:
> Hi Julian,
>
> 於 二,2014-03-11 於 18:15 +0100,Julian Wollrath 提到:
> > Am Tue, 11 Mar 2014 14:56:41 +0100 (CET)
> > schrieb Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>:
> > > > Ok, via bisecting I found commit
> > > > 73f7d1ca32638028e3271f54616773727e2f9f26 (see below) to be the one
> > > > that introduced this regression.
> > >
> > > Interesting. I have no idea what's going on. But maybe can the ACPI
> > > folks shed some light on it.
> >
>
> My patch moved acpi_early_init() to before timekeeping_init() is for
> prepare the later using ACPI TAD to set system clock. I think that
> because acpi_early_init() setup SCI interrupt and enable acpi subsystem,
> it causes fast TSC calibration fail.
>
> > I have absolutely no idea, if it is the right thing to do and why it
> > works, but the patch below fixes the problem. Thank you for your help.
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Julian Wollrath
> >
> > From 7664f495039d93adfce073e58840a46549904f04 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> > From: Julian Wollrath <jwollrath@web.de>
> > Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2014 18:05:43 +0100
> > Subject: [PATCH] Fix fast TSC calibration
> >
> > Since commit 73f7d1ca32638028e3271f54616773727e2f9f26 the fast TSC calibration
> > failed on a Thinkpad X121e with an AMD E450 APU. Moving acpi_early_init() after
> > late_time_init() fixes this.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Julian Wollrath <jwollrath@web.de>
> > ---
> > init/main.c | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> > index eb03090cdced..bf9d99148bd6 100644
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -561,7 +561,6 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > init_timers();
> > hrtimers_init();
> > softirq_init();
> > - acpi_early_init();
> > timekeeping_init();
> > time_init();
> > sched_clock_postinit();
> > @@ -609,6 +608,7 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> > numa_policy_init();
> > if (late_time_init)
> > late_time_init();
> > + acpi_early_init();
> > sched_clock_init();
> > calibrate_delay();
> > pidmap_init();
>
> The late_time_init() dependent on timekeeping_init(), if we don't want
> move acpi_early_init() before timekeeping_init() then just direct put it
> before efi_enter_virtual_mode() because we tested this changed.
>
> This patch restricts the position to run acpi_early_init() before
> timekeeping_init() when only "CMOS RTC Not Present" bit set in FADT.
>
> Could you please help to test it on your machine?
>
>
> Thanks a lot!
> Joey Lee
>
>
> >From 8ef4fff76dd2f50bef1e8eb9c96f3b0228a38401 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@suse.com>
> Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2014 11:36:32 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] ACPI / init: Run acpi_early_init() before timekeeping_init() when CMOS RTC Not Present bit set
>
> This is a variant patch from Rafael J. Wysocki's
> ACPI / init: Run acpi_early_init() before efi_enter_virtual_mode()
>
> According to Matt Fleming, if acpi_early_init() was executed before
> efi_enter_virtual_mode(), the EFI initialization could benefit from
> it, so Rafael's patch makes that happen.
>
> And, later we want accessing ACPI TAD device to set system clock, so
> move acpi_early_init() before timekeeping_init() when "CMOS RTC Not
> Present" bit set. This position is also before efi_enter_virtual_mode().
>
> Signed-off-by: Lee, Chun-Yi <jlee@suse.com>
> ---
> init/main.c | 7 ++++++-
> 1 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/init/main.c b/init/main.c
> index eb03090..e1b69d2 100644
> --- a/init/main.c
> +++ b/init/main.c
> @@ -561,7 +561,9 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> init_timers();
> hrtimers_init();
> softirq_init();
> - acpi_early_init();
> + if (acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision >= 5 &&
> + acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC)
> + acpi_early_init();
Sorry, this is not the right way to address that.
First of all, checking fields in acpi_gbl_FADT from anything in init/main.c
is wrong. If anything, please move that check to acpi_early_init(). And
make it check it if it's been called already.
> timekeeping_init();
> time_init();
> sched_clock_postinit();
> @@ -613,6 +615,9 @@ asmlinkage void __init start_kernel(void)
> calibrate_delay();
> pidmap_init();
> anon_vma_init();
> + if (!(acpi_gbl_FADT.header.revision >= 5 &&
> + acpi_gbl_FADT.boot_flags & ACPI_FADT_NO_CMOS_RTC))
> + acpi_early_init();
And then you can call it here again.
> #ifdef CONFIG_X86
> if (efi_enabled(EFI_RUNTIME_SERVICES))
> efi_enter_virtual_mode();
>
But I wonder: Can we simply enable SCI later? In other words, can we
split acpi_early_init() so that the part before acpi_enable_subsystem()
is done before timekeeping_init() and the part including and after
is done right after anon_vma_init()? Would the TAD initialization work
then?
--
I speak only for myself.
Rafael J. Wysocki, Intel Open Source Technology Center.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-03-12 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 41+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-10 10:04 Julian Wollrath
2014-03-10 10:27 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-10 14:06 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-10 15:28 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-10 17:04 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-10 18:32 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-10 18:57 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-10 19:19 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-10 20:50 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-10 23:06 ` Paul Bolle
2014-03-11 16:02 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-11 13:27 ` Julian Wollrath
2014-03-10 10:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-11 13:29 ` Julian Wollrath
2014-03-11 13:56 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-11 17:15 ` Julian Wollrath
2014-03-12 4:00 ` joeyli
2014-03-12 10:20 ` Julian Wollrath
2014-03-12 13:52 ` joeyli
2014-03-12 11:20 ` Rafael J. Wysocki [this message]
2014-03-12 13:30 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-03-12 13:55 ` Julian Wollrath
2014-03-12 15:41 ` joeyli
2014-03-12 16:20 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-12 16:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-12 16:39 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-12 23:27 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-03-12 23:49 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-13 0:13 ` Rafael J. Wysocki
2014-03-13 2:56 ` joeyli
2014-03-13 0:54 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-13 1:01 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-13 2:38 ` joeyli
2014-03-13 3:11 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-13 3:55 ` joeyli
2014-03-13 3:59 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-13 4:12 ` joeyli
2014-03-13 8:12 ` Thomas Gleixner
2014-03-13 8:59 ` joeyli
2014-03-13 3:41 ` H. Peter Anvin
2014-03-12 14:00 ` joeyli
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1902317.cSAIh6fs84@vostro.rjw.lan \
--to=rjw@rjwysocki.net \
--cc=Lee@linutronix.de \
--cc=jlee@suse.com \
--cc=jwollrath@web.de \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=x86@kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®