Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S933065AbWKXU1N (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:27:13 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S935040AbWKXU1N (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:27:13 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:61605 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S933065AbWKXU1L (ORCPT ); Fri, 24 Nov 2006 15:27:11 -0500 Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:25:14 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Andi Kleen Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton , Arjan van de Ven , Thomas Gleixner Subject: Re: [patch] x86: unify/rewrite SMP TSC sync code Message-ID: <20061124202514.GA7608@elte.hu> References: <20061124170246.GA9956@elte.hu> <200611241813.13205.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200611241813.13205.ak@suse.de> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.5 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts -2.6 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] 1.4 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1982 Lines: 45 * Andi Kleen wrote: > > make the TSC synchronization code more robust, and unify it between > > x86_64 and i386. > > > > The biggest change is the removal of the 'fix up TSCs' code on > > x86_64 and i386, in some rare cases it was /causing/ time-warps on > > SMP systems. > > On x86-64 I don't think it can since it doesn't check anymore on sync > Intel. yeah - the main new bit for x86-64 is the unconditional check for time warps. We shouldnt (and cannot) really trust the CPU and the board/BIOS getting it right. There were always some motherboards using Intel CPUs that had the TSCs wrong. > > The new code only checks for TSC asynchronity - and if it can prove > > a time-warp (if it can observe the TSC going backwards when going > > from one CPU to another within a critical section), then the TSC > > clock-source is turned off. > > The trouble is that people are using the RDTSC anyways even if the > kernel doesn't. So some synchronization is probably a good idea. which apps are using it? It might be safer in terms of app compatibility if we removed the TSC bit in the case where we know it doesnt work, and if we turned the feature off in the CPU in this case. We could also try to 'approximately' sync up the TSC, but that obviously cannot be used for kernel timekeeping - and by offering an 'almost' good TSC to userspace we'd lure them towards using something we /cannot/ fix. nor can the TSC really be synced up properly in the hotplug CPU case, after the fact - what if the app already read out an older TSC value and a new CPU is added. If the TSC isnt sync on SMP then it quickly gets pretty messy, and we should rather take a look at /why/ these apps are using RDTSC. Ingo - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/