Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
From:   Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
To:     Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, bigeasy@linutronix.de
Cc:     mark.rutland@arm.com, maz@kernel.org, catalin.marinas@arm.com,
        will@kernel.org, chenhuacai@kernel.org, kernel@xen0n.name,
        hca@linux.ibm.com, gor@linux.ibm.com, agordeev@linux.ibm.com,
        borntraeger@linux.ibm.com, svens@linux.ibm.com,
        pbonzini@redhat.com, wanpengli@tencent.com, vkuznets@redhat.com,
        mingo@redhat.com, bp@alien8.de, dave.hansen@linux.intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, hpa@zytor.com, jgross@suse.com,
        boris.ostrovsky@oracle.com, daniel.lezcano@linaro.org,
        kys@microsoft.com, haiyangz@microsoft.com, wei.liu@kernel.org,
        decui@microsoft.com, rafael@kernel.org, peterz@infradead.org,
        longman@redhat.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com, pmladek@suse.com,
        senozhatsky@chromium.org, rostedt@goodmis.org,
        john.ogness@linutronix.de, juri.lelli@redhat.com,
        vincent.guittot@linaro.org, dietmar.eggemann@arm.com,
        bsegall@google.com, mgorman@suse.de, bristot@redhat.com,
        vschneid@redhat.com, jstultz@google.com, sboyd@kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, loongarch@lists.linux.dev,
        linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org, linux-pm@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 08/13] x86/vdso: Fix gettimeofday masking
In-Reply-To: <87r0qwfrm0.ffs@tglx>
References: <20230519102058.581557770@infradead.org>
 <20230519102715.704767397@infradead.org> <87r0qwfrm0.ffs@tglx>
Date:   Thu, 01 Jun 2023 00:46:20 +0200
Message-ID: <87y1l4dsqr.ffs@tglx>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 31 2023 at 17:27, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Fri, May 19 2023 at 12:21, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> to take wrapping into account, but per all the above, we don't
>> actually wrap on u64 anymore.
>
> Indeed. The rationale was that you need ~146 years uptime with a 4GHz
> TSC or ~584 years with 1GHz to actually reach the wrap around point.
>
> Though I can see your point to make sure that silly BIOSes or VMMs
> cannot cause havoc by accident or malice.
>
> Did anyone ever validate that wrap around on TSC including TSC deadline
> timer works correctly?
>
> I have faint memories of TSC_ADJUST, which I prefer not to bring back to
> main memory :)

It seems my fears have been unjustified.

At least a quick test which sets the TSC to ~ -8min @2.1Ghz the machine
seems to survive without the colourful explosions I expected due to my
early exposure to TSC_ADJUST and TSC_DEADLINE_TIMER :)

Thanks,

        tglx