Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755550Ab2BFUiR (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:38:17 -0500 Received: from s15943758.onlinehome-server.info ([217.160.130.188]:58738 "EHLO mail.x86-64.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751266Ab2BFUiQ (ORCPT ); Mon, 6 Feb 2012 15:38:16 -0500 Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 21:37:38 +0100 From: Borislav Petkov To: Peter Zijlstra Cc: Stephane Eranian , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, acme@redhat.com, mingo@elte.hu, robert.richter@amd.com, eric.dumazet@gmail.com, Andreas Herrmann , Venkatesh Pallipadi Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: perf sched warning possibly due to clock granularity on AMD Message-ID: <20120206203738.GB556@aftab> References: <20120206132546.GA30854@quad> <1328538403.2482.4.camel@laptop> <20120206153408.GA31237@aftab> <1328546246.2482.10.camel@laptop> <20120206164626.GA31704@aftab> <1328547259.2482.11.camel@laptop> <20120206202722.GA556@aftab> <1328560293.2482.24.camel@laptop> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1328560293.2482.24.camel@laptop> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2174 Lines: 60 On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 21:27 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:54:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > > > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 17:46 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote: > > > > > across all CPUs in the entire system. > > > > > > > > Right, by the "entire system" you mean consistent across cores and > > > > sockets but not necessarily across cabinets, as in the comment above, > > > > correct? > > > > > > > > If so, let me ask around if this holds true too. > > > > > > Every CPU available to the kernel. So if you run a single system image > > > across your cabinets, then yes those too. > > > > Ok, but what about that sentence "(but not across cabinets - we turn > > it off in that case explicitly.)" - I don't see any place where it is > > turned off explicitly... Maybe a stale comment? > > I suspect it might be the sched_clock_stable = 0 in mark_tsc_unstable(), > but lets ask Venki, IIRC he wrote all that. Yeah, I was looking at the code further and on Intel it does: if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) { set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC); set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC); if (!check_tsc_unstable()) sched_clock_stable = 1; } while on AMD, in early_init_amd() we do: if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) { set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC); set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC); } and having in mind that tsc_unstable is set on generic x86 paths, nothing stops us to do the same on AMD too, and as a result, set sched_clock_stable too. But yeah, let's see what Venki has to say first. Thanks. -- Regards/Gruss, Boris. Advanced Micro Devices GmbH Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach GM: Alberto Bozzo Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551 -- 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/