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
next prev parent 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