All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@gmail.com>
To: "Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@linux-mips.org>
Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [Q] Is 64bit LVTT screwed
Date: Tue, 8 Jul 2008 23:09:56 +0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080708190956.GC2775@asus> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.55.0807072243410.20615@cliff.in.clinika.pl>

[Maciej W. Rozycki - Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 11:08:57PM +0100]
[...]
| > 
| > but in both cases we use "divide by 16" in divide register. The only
| > explanation I imagine - for 64bit mode we are required to 'stuck'
| > for a bit longer (by 16 times longer to be precise). Am I right?
| > Or there is another reason why we dont use APIC_DIVISOR here. Actually,
| > as I see it not fair to a caller. For 64bit mode APIC timer is requested
| > to count 250000000 ticks but in real it will count 250000000 * 16.
| > Not sure who is right there. I think the better would be to
| > use 4000000000 and APIC_DIVISOR in 64bit mode. How do you think?
| 
|  The APIC clock varies across systems so the timer setup includes
| calibration.  Which means both variations end up with the correct
| interrupt rate probably, except using different divisors.  We used to
| print the APIC clock rate and that would be off with one of the above, but
| I don't we do this anymore.  We had a similar problem with the 82489DX
| where the prescaler was bypassed altogether resulting in an incorrect 
| clock rate printed, but the rate of timer interrupt was correctly 
| calibrated regardless.
| 
|  This is of course merely an explanation why the code you quoted does not
| explode spectacularly.  It does not make it correct.  If the prescaler is
| indeed set to 16 for 64-bit systems, then APIC_DIVISOR should obviously be
| used in the calculation above too.  And if not, then I think the prescaler 
| should be set consistently across systems and then the setting reflected 
| in the calculations accordingly.  Please note that only values between 2 
| and 16 are supported in a uniform way across all the APIC models and using 
| low values risks an overflow as clock rates are in the GHz range these 
| days already.  The value of 16 seems a reasonable one.
| 
|   Maciej
|

Maciej, I think the right soulution is the next:

Index: linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/apic_64.c
===================================================================
--- linux-2.6.git.orig/arch/x86/kernel/apic_64.c	2008-07-08 22:52:24.000000000 +0400
+++ linux-2.6.git/arch/x86/kernel/apic_64.c	2008-07-08 23:00:24.000000000 +0400
@@ -165,6 +165,9 @@ int lapic_get_maxlvt(void)
 	return maxlvt;
 }
 
+/* Clock divisor is set to 16 */
+#define APIC_DIVISOR 16
+
 /*
  * This function sets up the local APIC timer, with a timeout of
  * 'clocks' APIC bus clock. During calibration we actually call
@@ -197,7 +200,7 @@ static void __setup_APIC_LVTT(unsigned i
 				| APIC_TDR_DIV_16);
 
 	if (!oneshot)
-		apic_write(APIC_TMICT, clocks);
+		apic_write(APIC_TMICT, clocks/APIC_DIVISOR);
 }
 
 /*
@@ -329,7 +332,7 @@ static void __init calibrate_APIC_clock(
 	 *
 	 * No interrupt enable !
 	 */
-	__setup_APIC_LVTT(250000000, 0, 0);
+	__setup_APIC_LVTT(4000000000, 0, 0);
 
 	apic_start = apic_read(APIC_TMCCT);
 #ifdef CONFIG_X86_PM_TIMER

So we remain behaviour the same (ie calibrating duration remains the same)
but it has touched lapic_timer_setup. Will take a look into this more closer
soon.

		- Cyrill -

      parent reply	other threads:[~2008-07-08 19:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-07-02 18:40 [Q] Is 64bit LVTT screwed Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-07-07 22:08 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2008-07-08 11:38   ` Cyrill Gorcunov
2008-07-08 19:09   ` Cyrill Gorcunov [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20080708190956.GC2775@asus \
    --to=gorcunov@gmail.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=macro@linux-mips.org \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.