Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756656AbYJXAqw (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:46:52 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752127AbYJXAqo (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:46:44 -0400 Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([198.137.202.10]:37654 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751955AbYJXAqn (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 20:46:43 -0400 Message-ID: <49011AD7.7000901@zytor.com> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 17:46:15 -0700 From: "H. Peter Anvin" User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.14 (X11/20080501) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Andi Kleen CC: akataria@vmware.com, Ingo Molnar , LKML , the arch/x86 maintainers , Daniel Hecht Subject: Re: [PATCH] Skip tsc synchronization checks if CONSTANT_TSC bit is set. References: <1224703427.13953.8.camel@alok-dev1> <20081022195845.GP12825@one.firstfloor.org> <1224712846.13953.37.camel@alok-dev1> <20081022221316.GW12825@one.firstfloor.org> <1224713518.13953.46.camel@alok-dev1> <20081022225409.GB27492@one.firstfloor.org> <1224728478.13953.79.camel@alok-dev1> <20081023081052.GI27492@one.firstfloor.org> <1224805162.21776.45.camel@alok-dev1> <49010D1E.8070400@zytor.com> <20081024002511.GC27492@one.firstfloor.org> In-Reply-To: <20081024002511.GC27492@one.firstfloor.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1281 Lines: 26 Andi Kleen wrote: >> As far as skipping the check, it makes sense for me in the case of known >> virtualization platforms; a CPU feature bit, real or synthetic, is a >> very clean way to do that. > > I don't think adding detection for non PV Hypervisors is anywhere clean > Even if it's only VMware today, tomorrow it will be a few more > and long term you might need to support all of the obscuro hypervisors > that are out there. Just seems like a slippery slope. Either it's > paravirtual or it's not, but it should attempt to be both. If the hypervisor > doesn't emulate TSC well enough that the native code works it's entirely > reasonable to let it use some other timer, like it has been always > done in the past. That is at least to some degree nonsense, simply because we are all well down that particular "slippery slope": we have hardware blacklists and whitelists, CPU-specific workarounds, and so on all over the place, and in that sense a hypervisor really isn't different than another hardware platform. -hpa -- 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/