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;
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 12:08:10 -0700
From:   "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>
To:     Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@intel.com>
Cc:     Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Feng Tang <feng.tang@intel.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        "H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>, rui.zhang@intel.com,
        x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86/tsc: Make recalibration default on for
 TSC_KNOWN_FREQ cases
Message-ID: <2c5a8c69-21d0-4b1a-ad1b-6072228e2b43@paulmck-laptop>
Reply-To: paulmck@kernel.org
References: <20230522033018.1276836-1-feng.tang@intel.com>
 <87h6s4ye9b.ffs@tglx>
 <934e9008-36db-492b-b744-9d68183c6d32@paulmck-laptop>
 <73283eba-14b8-2da1-6109-c183586fe5b7@intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <73283eba-14b8-2da1-6109-c183586fe5b7@intel.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Fri, Jun 02, 2023 at 11:36:54AM -0700, Dave Hansen wrote:
> On 6/2/23 11:29, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> >>> One downside is, many VMs also has X86_FEATURE_TSC_KNOWN_FREQ set,
> >>> and they will also do this recalibration.
> >> It's also pointless for those SoCs which lack legacy hardware.
> >>
> >> So why do you force this on everyone?
> > Just for the record, this patch could be helpful in allowing victims
> > of TSC mis-synchronization to more easily provide a more complete bug
> > report to the firmware people.  There is of course no point if there is
> > already a fix available.
> > 
> > But it is not all that hard to work around not having this patch upstream.
> > This can be hand-applied as needed, NTP drift rates can be pressed
> > into service for those of us having atomic clocks near all our servers,
> > or the firmware guys can be tasked with figuring it out.
> > 
> > So this patch would be nice to have, but we could live without it.
> 
> Is this the kind of thing we could relegate to a kernel unit test?  Like
> make the recalibration logic _available_, but don't have it affect the
> rest of the system.
> 
> I love patching my kernel as much as the next guy.  But, you know what I
> *don't* love?  Explaining how to patch kernels to other people. ;)

One could argue that we already have the TSC equivalent of a kernel unit
test with the tsc=recalibrate kernel boot parameter.

So, would it make sense to have something like tsc=recalibrate (already
present) in the guise of something like hpet=recalibrate and/or
pmtmr=recalibrate in order to allow people to opt into recalibrating
whatever timer is marked unstable?

							Thanx, Paul