From: "George Spelvin" <linux@horizon.com>
To: linux@horizon.com, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Cc: adrian.hunter@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com, hpa@zytor.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
mingo@kernel.org, tglx@linutronix.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in quick_pit_calibrate()
Date: 4 Jun 2015 13:54:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150604175438.12888.qmail@ns.horizon.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CA+55aFw-LpVqUbAARwV_vabE7BGD7Z=O-oNdNJhrcuz6qMuM7w@mail.gmail.com>
On Thu, 4 Jun 2015 at 09:52:34, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> With the usual "have timestamp both before the read that shows the bit
> set, and after the read" so that you can estimate how big the error
> window is.
Actually, the current code uses three timestamps: one before the last
read of the unwanted value, one in the middle, and one after the
read of the target value (bit set in this case).
The delta beween the outer two is used for error estimaion, and the
middle timestamp is used as the guess for when the clock ticked.
Because, if you properly factor out the common code, an RTC read
is just one inb(), as opposed to two for the PIT, I would hope
it could do better.
> And you definitely want to disable interrupts and make sure nobody
> else reads that register, since reading it will clear it. Although I
> guess that during early boot there shouldn't be any other RTC
> activity..
That's the other reason to factor out the CMOS locking.
There's code in e.g.: arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c:mach_get_cmos_time() or
drivers/rtc/rtc-cmos.c:cmos_nvram_read() that would also benefit from
not acquiring and releasing the lock around every single one-byte read.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-04 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-03 6:27 George Spelvin
2015-06-03 18:29 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-03 18:48 ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-06-03 19:07 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-04 16:38 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-04 16:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-04 17:54 ` George Spelvin [this message]
2015-06-04 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-05 5:52 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-05 6:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-05 5:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-05 8:24 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-05 8:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-05 20:17 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-06 21:50 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-09 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH] Make quick_pit_calibrate more robust George Spelvin
2015-06-09 9:13 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-09 9:54 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 7:08 ` Discussion: quick_pit_calibrate is slow George Spelvin
2015-06-10 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-10 8:47 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 9:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-10 15:43 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 15:56 ` Arjan van de Ven
2015-06-10 16:27 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 18:38 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 19:30 ` Arjan van de Ven
2015-06-10 22:19 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 8:13 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-10 8:55 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-10 16:11 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 7:32 ` Discussion: quick_pit_calibrate isn't quick George Spelvin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-21 7:55 [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in quick_pit_calibrate() Adrian Hunter
2015-06-01 7:57 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-02 13:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 19:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 19:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-02 19:43 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-02 19:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 20:03 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-02 20:20 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-02 21:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 23:38 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-03 0:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-03 0:39 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-03 0:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-03 3:30 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-03 8:13 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-03 13:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-04 11:28 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-03 16:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-22 11:21 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-22 13:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-07-06 6:48 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-07-06 7:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-22 14:12 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-03 4:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-03 6:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-03 13:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-03 16:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-03 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-03 17:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-06-04 12:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-03 17:06 ` Ingo Molnar
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=20150604175438.12888.qmail@ns.horizon.com \
--to=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--cc=mingo@kernel.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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®