Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] sched/clock: interface to allow timestamps early
 in boot
To: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
References: <1504116205-355281-1-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
 <1504116205-355281-2-git-send-email-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com>
 <20170927125857.yvwefpejzskiduwu@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170927131003.dxbvu7frcqgtiwaz@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <aed54345-b752-e93a-8be7-96df9b083f6c@oracle.com>
 <4a62156c-ea0f-749f-e21b-37919dfda1df@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20170927180548.GM17526@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <20170927180950.GD439@worktop>
 <1dd60ace-c2aa-6c88-d4b0-cba934be4b79@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20170928115814.hnpah2bgkuaegtct@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
 <alpine.DEB.2.20.1709281410310.1879@nanos>
 <281ff50e-ea79-b006-57e9-e80a2728419b@oracle.com>
CC: <linux@armlinux.org.uk>, <schwidefsky@de.ibm.com>,
        <heiko.carstens@de.ibm.com>, <john.stultz@linaro.org>,
        <sboyd@codeaurora.org>, <x86@kernel.org>,
        <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, <mingo@redhat.com>, <hpa@zytor.com>
From: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
Message-ID: <71796664-a804-4bdd-ecd6-9eba9ef8a968@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 23:00:56 +0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/45.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <281ff50e-ea79-b006-57e9-e80a2728419b@oracle.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1462
Lines: 45

Hi, Pasha

At 09/28/2017 09:11 PM, Pasha Tatashin wrote:
>>>> It will be best if we can support TSC sync capability in x86, but seems
>>>> is not easy.
>>>
>>> Sure, your hardware achieving sync would be best, but even if it does
>>> not, we can still use TSC. Using notsc simple because you fail to sync
>>> TSCs is quite crazy.
>>>
>>> The thing is, we need to support unsync'ed TSC in any case, because
>>> older chips (pre Nehalem) didn't have synchronized TSC in any case, and
>>> it still happens on recent chips if the BIOS mucks it up, which happens
>>> surprisingly often :-(
>>>
>>> I would suggest you try your reconfigurable setup with "tsc=unstable"
>>> and see if that works for you. That marks the TSC unconditionally
>>> unstable at boot and avoids any further wobbles once the TSC watchdog
>>> notices (although that too _should_ more or less work).
>>
>> That should do the trick nicely and we might just end up converting notsc
>> to tsc=unstable silently so we can avoid the bike shed discussions about
>> removing it.
>>
>
> Ok, I will start working on converting notsc to unstable, and modify my
> patches to do what Peter suggested earlier. In the mean time, I'd like
> to hear from Dou if this setup works with dynamic reconfig.
>

OK, I will do it, But, October 1 is our national holiday, I will in 
holiday, and I just returned the test machine. :-(

May reply you in middle of the October.

Thanks,

	dou.

> Thank you,
> Pasha
>
>
>