All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: marc.zyngier@arm.com (Marc Zyngier)
To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
Subject: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: delay: print dummy values for bogomips
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:17:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5188B8B2.5030601@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130506231554.GB16801@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>

On 07/05/13 00:16, Pavel Machek wrote:

Hi Pawel,

>> Now that we support a timer-backed delay loop, I'm quickly getting sick
>> and tired of people complaining that their beloved bogomips value has
>> decreased. You know who you are!
> 
>> Unfortunately, we can't just remove the entry from /proc/cpuinfo, as it
>> will likely break fragile userspace code which is parsing that stuff, so
>> instead replace it with a dummy value that can be chosen in the
>> Kconfig.
> 
> So, instead of removing it you silently report invalid value? Note

Removing it would be an ABI breakage. Unfortunately.

> that there's no cpumhz display in procinfo... at least on OLPC I
> looked.

And? What does the CPU frequency bring you when any modern CPU has some
kind of cpufreq support that renders this information information pretty
much meaningless?

> And whether it is 30MHz or 3GHz cpu might be relevant information for
> userspace, and yes, bogomips used to be good enough for that.

Name one userspace application that extracts meaningful information out
of the BogoMIPS field. Just one.

> Actually it was mhz, mhz/2 or mhz*2 on pretty much all reasonable systems.

So any number within a ratio from one to four is good enough for you?
Wow. That pretty much proves the usefulness of this patch.

Additionally, having switched arch_timer capable CPUs to a timer based
delay instead of a loop-based delay means your precious pseudo-frequency
is now a thing of the past. And guess what? Nothing broke so far.
Because using BogoMIPS to deduct anything is *bogus*.

Timer-based delay calibration has been around for about ages. I still
remember the day (some 10 or 12 years ago) when DaveM switched the
UltraSPARC port to use the timer, and my BogoMIPS went from ~1000 to 12.
People moaned, DaveM held his position, and nothing happened. *Nothing*.
End of story.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
To: Pavel Machek <pavel@ucw.cz>
Cc: Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: delay: print dummy values for bogomips
Date: Tue, 07 May 2013 09:17:54 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <5188B8B2.5030601@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20130506231554.GB16801@amd.pavel.ucw.cz>

On 07/05/13 00:16, Pavel Machek wrote:

Hi Pawel,

>> Now that we support a timer-backed delay loop, I'm quickly getting sick
>> and tired of people complaining that their beloved bogomips value has
>> decreased. You know who you are!
> 
>> Unfortunately, we can't just remove the entry from /proc/cpuinfo, as it
>> will likely break fragile userspace code which is parsing that stuff, so
>> instead replace it with a dummy value that can be chosen in the
>> Kconfig.
> 
> So, instead of removing it you silently report invalid value? Note

Removing it would be an ABI breakage. Unfortunately.

> that there's no cpumhz display in procinfo... at least on OLPC I
> looked.

And? What does the CPU frequency bring you when any modern CPU has some
kind of cpufreq support that renders this information information pretty
much meaningless?

> And whether it is 30MHz or 3GHz cpu might be relevant information for
> userspace, and yes, bogomips used to be good enough for that.

Name one userspace application that extracts meaningful information out
of the BogoMIPS field. Just one.

> Actually it was mhz, mhz/2 or mhz*2 on pretty much all reasonable systems.

So any number within a ratio from one to four is good enough for you?
Wow. That pretty much proves the usefulness of this patch.

Additionally, having switched arch_timer capable CPUs to a timer based
delay instead of a loop-based delay means your precious pseudo-frequency
is now a thing of the past. And guess what? Nothing broke so far.
Because using BogoMIPS to deduct anything is *bogus*.

Timer-based delay calibration has been around for about ages. I still
remember the day (some 10 or 12 years ago) when DaveM switched the
UltraSPARC port to use the timer, and my BogoMIPS went from ~1000 to 12.
People moaned, DaveM held his position, and nothing happened. *Nothing*.
End of story.

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...


  reply	other threads:[~2013-05-07  8:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2013-05-03 17:35 [RFC PATCH 0/2] ARM: Remove any correlation between IPC and BogoMips value Will Deacon
2013-05-03 17:35 ` Will Deacon
2013-05-03 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 1/2] ARM: delay: print dummy values for bogomips Will Deacon
2013-05-03 17:35   ` Will Deacon
2013-05-06 23:16   ` Pavel Machek
2013-05-06 23:16     ` Pavel Machek
2013-05-07  8:17     ` Marc Zyngier [this message]
2013-05-07  8:17       ` Marc Zyngier
2013-05-14 19:54       ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-05-14 19:54         ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-05-14 22:23         ` Rob Herring
2013-05-14 22:23           ` Rob Herring
2013-05-14 23:56           ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-05-14 23:56             ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-05-15  9:01             ` Will Deacon
2013-05-15  9:01               ` Will Deacon
2013-05-15 11:47               ` Pavel Machek
2013-05-15 11:47                 ` Pavel Machek
2013-05-15 12:34                 ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-05-15 12:34                   ` Nicolas Pitre
2013-05-20  9:59                   ` Pavel Machek
2013-05-20  9:59                     ` Pavel Machek
2013-05-03 17:35 ` [RFC PATCH 2/2] init: calibrate: don't print out bogomips value on boot Will Deacon
2013-05-03 17:35   ` Will Deacon
2013-05-06 18:01 ` [RFC PATCH 0/2] ARM: Remove any correlation between IPC and BogoMips value Christopher Covington
2013-05-06 18:01   ` Christopher Covington
2013-05-07  9:08   ` Will Deacon
2013-05-07  9:08     ` Will Deacon
2013-05-07 15:48     ` Christopher Covington
2013-05-07 15:48       ` Christopher Covington
2013-05-08  9:06       ` Will Deacon
2013-05-08  9:06         ` Will Deacon
2013-05-13 15:14         ` Christopher Covington
2013-05-13 15:14           ` Christopher Covington

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=5188B8B2.5030601@arm.com \
    --to=marc.zyngier@arm.com \
    --cc=linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.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.