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:   David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>
To:     'Thomas Gleixner' <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "maintainer:X86 ARCHITECTURE (32-BIT AND 64-BIT)" <x86@kernel.org>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
        "open list:DOCUMENTATION" <linux-doc@vger.kernel.org>,
        open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        "Guilherme G. Piccoli" <gpiccoli@igalia.com>
CC:     Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>,
        Steven Noonan <steven@uplinklabs.net>,
        "kernel@collabora.com" <kernel@collabora.com>
Subject: RE: Direct rdtsc call side-effect
Thread-Topic: Direct rdtsc call side-effect
Thread-Index: AQHZlHOrHGvpd378GUKTvqmuipgWK698BnPA
Date:   Mon, 5 Jun 2023 10:27:46 +0000
Message-ID: <353732783fde46919fdcf698c326b7ed@AcuMS.aculab.com>
References: <6719fb05-382c-8ec4-ccda-72798906a54b@collabora.com>
 <87mt1jeax1.ffs@tglx>
In-Reply-To: <87mt1jeax1.ffs@tglx>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Precedence: bulk

...
> Who would have thought that rdtsc() in applications can be a problem.
> Interfaces to query time exist for a reason and it's documented by
> Microsoft:
> 
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/dxtecharts/game-timing-and-multicore-processors
> 
> But sure, reading documentation is overrated...

That eve says:
   "Multiprocessor and dual-core systems do not guarantee synchronization
   of their cycle counters between cores."

.
> Synchronizing TSC by writing the TSC MSR is fragile as hell. This has
> been tried so often and never reliably passed all synchronization tests
> on a wide range of systems.
> 
> It kinda works on single socket, but not on larger systems.
> 
> We spent an insane amount of time to make timekeeping correct and I'm
> not interested at all to deal with the fallout of such a mechanim.

I've wondered whether the TSC ought to be deliberately mis-synchronised?
So the high order bits are effectively the cpu number.

It has to be said that using it as a time source was fundamentally
a bad idea.
Sometimes (eg micro benchmarks) you really want a TSC.
You can extract one from the performance counters, but it is hard,
root only, and the library functions have high and variable overhead.

	David

-
Registered Address Lakeside, Bramley Road, Mount Farm, Milton Keynes, MK1 1PT, UK
Registration No: 1397386 (Wales)