Re: Voyager subarchitecture for 2.5.46

[Vojtech Pavlik <vojtech@suse.cz>]

On Mon, Nov 11, 2002 at 12:40:49PM -0800, john stultz wrote:
> On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 11:46, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 10:59:55AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Unfortunately, this means "bye bye vsyscalls for gettimeofday".
> > > 
> > > Not necessarily. All of the fastpatch and the checking can be done by the
> > > vsyscall, and if the vsyscall notices that there is a backwards jump in
> > > time it just gives up and does a real system call. The vsyscall does need
> > > to figure out the CPU it's running on somehow, but that should be solvable
> > > - indexing through the thread ID or something.
> > 
> > I'm planning to store the CPU number in the highest bits of the TSC ...
> 
> I could be wrong, but we had considered this earlier, and found that
> there isn't a way to set the high bits of the TSC, you can only clear
> them. 

I'll have to test that. Another option is per-cpu page mappings for
vsyscalls. But that's rather ugly.

> > > The system call overhead tends to scale up very well with CPU speed (the
> > > one esception being the P4 which just has some internal problems with "int
> > > 0x80" and slowed down compared to a PIII).
> > > 
> > > So I would just suggest not spending a lot of effort on it, considering
> > > the problems it already has. 
> > 
> > Agreed. The only problem left I see is the need to have an interrupt of
> > every CPU from time to time to update the per-cpu time values, and to
> > synchronize those to the 'global timer interrupt' somehow.
> 
> Yes, this would be needed for per-cpu tsc. 

-- 
Vojtech Pavlik
SuSE Labs