Subject: Re: [patch 0/2] tsc/adjust: Cure suspend/resume issues and prevent
 TSC deadline timer irq storm
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
References: <20161213131115.764824574@linutronix.de>
Cc: x86@kernel.org, Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Bruce Schlobohm <bruce.schlobohm@intel.com>,
        Kevin Stanton <kevin.b.stanton@intel.com>,
        Allen Hung <allen_hung@dell.com>
From: Roland Scheidegger <rscheidegger_lists@hispeed.ch>
Message-ID: <33d4286c-3f77-1274-34b7-bc62d2c146a4@hispeed.ch>
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2016 17:34:11 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20161213131115.764824574@linutronix.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1320
Lines: 30

Am 13.12.2016 um 14:14 schrieb Thomas Gleixner:
> Roland reported interesting TSC ADJUST register wreckage on his DELL
> machine, which seems to populate that MSR with a random number generator.

FWIW, I thought about the actual values some more and I don't actually
think they are all that random any more: the behavior is consistent with
the bios trying to zero the TSC of all cpus. If I understand this right,
writing a zero to TSC would cause somewhat small negative values in the
TSC_ADJ register at boot time, and larger negative values at suspend
time (at least if the TSC just stops when suspended and isn't reset) -
exactly what I'm seeing.
(And of course the different TSC_ADJ values would be because the bios is
writing TSC without any thoughts of synchronization, just one cpu after
another).

> 
> Deeper investagation into fixing this wreckage unearthed another special
> feature which is designed by Intel: Negative TSC adjuste values cause
> interrupt storms on the TSC deadline timer. Further details in patch 2/2

This actually looks like quite a serious hw bug to me, shouldn't there
be an errata for such a bug?

And I still don't quite understand why the lockup doesn't happen after a
warm boot, there must be something different there...

(I didn't have the chance to test the patch yet.)

Roland