From: Luming Yu <luming.yu@gmail.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch] need check TSC wrap unconditionally
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 2009 10:30:53 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3877989d0908231930s2b313024m6dee07c57a1c7f25@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1250872678.7538.80.camel@twins>
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 12:37 AM, Peter Zijlstra<peterz@infradead.org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2009-08-14 at 12:15 +0800, Luming Yu wrote:
>> Hi there,
>
> Hi, thanks for CC'ing the right folks.
>
>> we disabled tsc wrap check on any platform that has NOSTOP_TSC cpu. But this
>> will cause some real problem.For example, 1.CPU does has constant and
>> non_stop tsc, which means different CPU ticks at same rate in same domain,but
>> have been given different initial TSC value.Then at any given time,
>> CPUsare unsynchronized.
>> 2. if those CPUs are sit in different domain..(multi-chassis cluster system?)
>>
>> Please review. If make sense, please apply.
>
> Right, so because your machine is funny, everybody with a good machine
> should suffer?
How comes? Good machine will pass the check without any problem.
>
> If the TSCs run at identical frequency (one time domain) but at
> different offsets, you can fix that by using cyc2ns_offset.
iirc, in old kernel, there was a function trying to re-sync TSC. But
it has been removed..
Should I re-introduce something that has been deleted. It is odd to do such
kind of thing to me if I don't know why it was deleted.
>
> When the machine has unsynchonized frequencies (multiple time domains),
> detect that during cpu enumeration and use that to disable the
> optimization.
yes.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Yu Luming <luming.yu@intel.com>
>
>> arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c | 7 +------
>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
>> index 027b5b4..312ba84 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c
>> @@ -113,11 +113,6 @@ void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_source(int cpu)
>> if (unsynchronized_tsc())
>> return;
>>
>> - if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE)) {
>> - pr_info("Skipping synchronization checks as TSC is
>> reliable.\n");
>> - return;
>> - }
>> -
>> pr_info("checking TSC synchronization [CPU#%d -> CPU#%d]:",
>> smp_processor_id(), cpu);
>>
>> @@ -171,7 +166,7 @@ void __cpuinit check_tsc_sync_target(void)
>> {
>> int cpus = 2;
>>
>> - if (unsynchronized_tsc() || boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE))
>> + if (unsynchronized_tsc())
>> return;
>>
>> /*
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2009-08-24 2:30 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2009-08-14 4:15 Luming Yu
2009-08-21 16:37 ` Peter Zijlstra
2009-08-24 2:30 ` Luming Yu [this message]
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=3877989d0908231930s2b313024m6dee07c57a1c7f25@mail.gmail.com \
--to=luming.yu@gmail.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@elte.hu \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
/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®