Re: Direct rdtsc call side-effect

["H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>]

On 6/5/23 08:54, David Laight wrote:
> From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
>> Sent: 05 June 2023 15:44
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 05 2023 at 10:27, David Laight wrote:
>>> It has to be said that using it as a time source was fundamentally
>>> a bad idea.
>>
>> Too bad you weren't around many moons ago and educated us on that. That
>> would have saved us lots of trouble and work.
> 
> Indeed :-)
> I do remember thinking the TSC was really a good time source when
> I first saw it being done about 30 years ago.
> 

The TSC is certainly not perfect; partly because, ironically enough, it 
was introduced just *before* out of order and power management entered 
the x86 world.

It is no secret that it has been slow to catch up. It was easy to put a 
counter in; it is a *lot* harder to make it work in all the possible 
scenarios in the power-managed, out-of-order world.

It is one of my personal pet projects in the architecture work to push 
to get that last distance; we are not yet there.

> 
> I'm thinking of benchmarking the IP checksum code where you are
> trying to find out how many bytes/clock the loop is doing.
> On recent x86-64 the theoretical limit (without fighting AVX) 1s 16
> bytes/clock, I've measured 12, 8 is relatively easy.
> (The current asm code runs at 4 on older cpu, doesn't get
> much above 6 at all.)
> 
> What happens is that the cpu frequency speeds up as soon as the
> test starts but the TSC frequency stays constants.
> So you can only use the TSC to measure time, not execution speed.
> 
> Run enough copies of 'while :; do :; done &' to make all but one
> cpu busy and the cpus all speed up giving completely different
> TSC counts for short loops.
> 

That is the reason for architecturally fixed performance counters.

	-hpa