Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811020922240.1642@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
References: <1541085133-32534-1-git-send-email-neelx@redhat.com>
 <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811011630310.1642@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
 <CACjP9X-aZ4-6h7KkgZO6TtPCY4teiBTzVn-c11ULPwbPid8qWQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.21.1811020922240.1642@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
From:   Daniel Vacek <neelx@redhat.com>
Date:   Mon, 5 Nov 2018 16:41:56 +0100
Message-ID: <CACjP9X-1ZJhGuNLNXBvvzcffWqpxFRUDmc4jsRuvTE2s4hxtJw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tsc: make calibration refinement more robust
To:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc:     x86@kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Nov 3, 2018 at 11:04 AM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> Daniel,
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Daniel Vacek wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
>> >> -#define MAX_RETRIES     5
>> >> -#define SMI_TRESHOLD    50000
>> >> +#define MAX_RETRIES  5
>> >> +#define TSC_THRESHOLD        (tsc_khz >> 5)
>> >
>> > This breaks pit_hpet_ptimer_calibrate_cpu() because at that point tsc_hkz is 0.
>>
>> That did not show up with my testing, sorry. I guess
>> pit_calibrate_tsc() never failed for me. Hmm, actually it looks like
>> quick_pit_calibrate() does the job for me so
>> pit_hpet_ptimer_calibrate_cpu() is likely not even called.
>
> Right. It's only called when quick calibration fails. Testing does not
> replace code inspection :)

Agreed. I was not 100% sure about this early init and order of
execution as it's dynamically changed with x86_platform.calibrate_cpu
and x86_platform.calibrate_tsc. Thanks again for the review, Thomas.

> Can you please avoid hiding the logic in a macro? Just use a local
> variable:
>
>         u64 thresh = tsc_khz ? tsc_khz >> 5 : TSC_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD;
>
> and use that in the comparison.

Sweet, I'll do that :)

--nX

> Thanks,
>
>         tglx