From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: rui.zhang@intel.com, dave.hansen@intel.com, andi.kleen@intel.com,
len.brown@intel.com, Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tsc: mark tsc reliable for qualified platforms
Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2021 15:51:31 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <878s7470jw.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1614653572-19941-1-git-send-email-feng.tang@intel.com>
On Tue, Mar 02 2021 at 10:52, Feng Tang wrote:
> There are cases that tsc clocksource are wrongly judged as unstable by
> clocksource watchdogs like hpet, acpi_pm or 'refined-jiffies'. While
> there is hardly a general reliable way to check the validity of a
> watchdog, and to protect the innocent tsc, Thomas Gleixner proposed [1]:
>
> "I'm inclined to lift that requirement when the CPU has:
>
> 1) X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC
> 2) X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC
> 3) X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC_S3
> 4) X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST
> 5) At max. 4 sockets
>
> After two decades of horrors we're finally at a point where TSC seems
> to be halfway reliable and less abused by BIOS tinkerers. TSC_ADJUST
> was really key as we can now detect even small modifications reliably
> and the important point is that we can cure them as well (not pretty
> but better than all other options)."
>
> So implement it with slight change as discussed in the thread, and be
> more defensive to use maxim of 2 sockets.
Can you please explain the slight change in the changelog?
Thanks,
tglx
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-03-03 18:40 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-03-02 2:52 Feng Tang
2021-03-02 9:14 ` Peter Zijlstra
2021-03-02 11:55 ` Feng Tang
2021-03-03 14:51 ` Thomas Gleixner [this message]
2021-03-08 1:42 ` Feng Tang
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=878s7470jw.fsf@nanos.tec.linutronix.de \
--to=tglx@linutronix.de \
--cc=andi.kleen@intel.com \
--cc=bp@alien8.de \
--cc=dave.hansen@intel.com \
--cc=feng.tang@intel.com \
--cc=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=len.brown@intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=peterz@infradead.org \
--cc=rui.zhang@intel.com \
--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®