public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@infradead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Subject: Re: [patch] x86: unify/rewrite SMP TSC sync code
Date: Fri, 24 Nov 2006 21:46:37 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20061124204636.GA12196@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200611242137.39012.ak@suse.de>


* Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de> wrote:

> 
> > yeah - the main new bit for x86-64 is the unconditional check for time 
> > warps. We shouldnt (and cannot) really trust the CPU and the board/BIOS 
> > getting it right. There were always some motherboards using Intel CPUs 
> > that had the TSCs wrong.
> 
> In the 64bit capable generation I don't know of any run in spec 
> (except for multinode systems and there was one overclocked system 
> where the cores got unsync, but overclocking is an operator error)

i have one (Intel based), 64-bit, fully in spec, which is off by 
~3000-4000 cycles. So it happens. But it's a no-brainer thing, this area 
is historically so bad that it would be crazy /not/ to spend this 20 
msecs bootup time per CPU to check whether its TSC is in sync.

I was in fact surprised when i noticed that you removed the 
unconditional TSC check that i put there years ago - with this we 
started a ride into the dark with lights off. If the situation gets 
better in say 2 years and no system ever produces the warning message we 
can remove it. (but i doubt it will ever get 100% correct.) [The patch 
will need some cooking in -mm, because it touches code that is fragile 
to begin with, but it's a necessity i'm quite sure.]

> > > The trouble is that people are using the RDTSC anyways even if the 
> > > kernel doesn't. So some synchronization is probably a good idea.
> > 
> > which apps are using it? It might be safer in terms of app 
> > compatibility if we removed the TSC bit in the case where we know it 
> > doesnt work, and if we turned the feature off in the CPU in this 
> > case. We could also try to 'approximately' sync up the TSC,
> 
> There was a patch from google for trap -- trapping RDTSC for syncing 
> on demand. I'm not sure that was the right strategy though.

but which apps are using RDTSC natively? Trapping isnt too good i agree 
- if then we should remove it from the CPU features and hence apps wont 
(or shouldnt) use it.

> > nor can the TSC really be synced up properly in the hotplug CPU 
> > case, after the fact - what if the app already read out an older TSC 
> > value and a new CPU is added. If the TSC isnt sync on SMP then it 
> > quickly gets pretty messy, and we should rather take a look at /why/ 
> > these apps are using RDTSC.
> 
> Because gettimeofday is too slow.

as i indicated it in another discussion, i can fix that. Next patch will 
be that.

	Ingo

  reply	other threads:[~2006-11-24 20:48 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-11-24 17:02 [patch] x86: unify/rewrite SMP TSC sync code Ingo Molnar
2006-11-24 17:13 ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-24 20:25   ` Ingo Molnar
2006-11-24 20:37     ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-24 20:46       ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2006-11-24 21:06         ` Andi Kleen
2006-11-24 22:48     ` Ben Greear
2006-11-25  2:56     ` Wink Saville
2006-11-25  8:30       ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-25 16:58         ` Wink Saville
2006-11-25 17:41           ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-25 20:34             ` Wink Saville
2006-11-27 19:00   ` Christoph Lameter
2006-11-29  7:13 ` Ingo Molnar
     [not found] <fa./NRPJg+JjfSQLUVwnX1GpHGIojQ@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found] ` <fa.Y0RKABHd+7qnbGQYBAGPvlJ0Qic@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]   ` <fa.fD3WSpNqEJ4736vYzEak5Gf3xTw@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]     ` <fa.A+gkQAO1DLThaxJxPLPl3yE1CGo@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]       ` <fa.INurNKWdUKAEULTHyfpSW65a/Ng@ifi.uio.no>
     [not found]         ` <fa.n9vySiI9RS2MCl0DZPDzxZEPiFw@ifi.uio.no>
2006-11-26  7:20           ` Robert Hancock
2006-11-26  8:16             ` Wink Saville
2006-11-26  8:24               ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-26 19:48                 ` Wink Saville
2006-11-27  7:51                   ` Arjan van de Ven
2006-11-27  9:15                     ` Wink Saville
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-11-27 17:23 Robert Crocombe
2006-11-27 18:41 ` Max Krasnyansky

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=20061124204636.GA12196@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox