public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>
Cc: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Alok Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@infradead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:52:36 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20080904205236.GA3864@elte.hu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20080904204305.GA29065@elte.hu>


> +static unsigned long quick_pit_calibrate(void)
> +{
[...]
> +	if (pit_expect_msb(0xff)) {
> +		int i;
> +		u64 t1, t2, delta;
> +		unsigned char expect = 0xfe;
> +
> +		t1 = get_cycles();
> +		for (i = 0; i < QUICK_PIT_ITERATIONS; i++, expect--) {
> +			if (!pit_expect_msb(expect))
> +				goto failed;
> +		}
> +		t2 = get_cycles();

hm, unless i'm missing something i think here we still have a small 
window for an SMI or some virtualization delay to slip in and cause 
massive inaccuracy: if the delay happens _after_ the last 
pit_expect_msb() and _before_ the external get_cycles() call. Right?

i fixed that by adding one more pit_expect_msb() call.

plus i think QUICK_PIT_ITERATIONS is quite close to overflowing 255 
which is built into the u32 'expect' variable (the MSB will only 
overflow to 10 bits or so) - so i've added a BUILD_BUG_ON() to make sure 
anyone tuning QUICK_PIT_MS above 60msec or so would get a build error 
instead of some hard(er) to track down calibration error.

but it's getting late here so please double-check me ... The commit is 
below.

	Ingo

------------>
>From 40d2650256289d3ba59c4fd146b86b972db6ec40 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2008 22:47:47 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] x86: quick TSC calibration, improve

- make sure the final TSC timestamp is reliable too

- make sure nobody increases QUICK_PIT_MS so that
  QUICK_PIT_ITERATIONS can get larger than 0xff, breaking the iteration.
  (It would take about 60 msecs to reach that limit.)

Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c |   11 +++++++++++
 1 files changed, 11 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
index 839070b..4832a40 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
@@ -304,6 +304,11 @@ static unsigned long quick_pit_calibrate(void)
 	outb(0xff, 0x42);
 	outb(0xff, 0x42);
 
+	/*
+	 * The iteration assumes that expect never goes below zero:
+	 */
+	BUILD_BUG_ON(QUICK_PIT_ITERATIONS >= 0xff);
+
 	if (pit_expect_msb(0xff)) {
 		int i;
 		u64 t1, t2, delta;
@@ -317,6 +322,12 @@ static unsigned long quick_pit_calibrate(void)
 		t2 = get_cycles();
 
 		/*
+		 * Make sure we can rely on the second TSC timestamp:
+		 */
+		if (!pit_expect_msb(--expect))
+			goto failed;
+
+		/*
 		 * Ok, if we get here, then we've seen the
 		 * MSB of the PIT decrement QUICK_PIT_ITERATIONS
 		 * times, and each MSB had many hits, so we never

  reply	other threads:[~2008-09-04 20:53 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 52+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2008-09-04 15:18 [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-04 15:18 ` [RFC patch 1/4] x86: TSC: define the PIT latch value separate Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-04 15:18 ` [RFC patch 2/4] x86: TSC: separate hpet/pmtimer calculation out Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-04 15:18 ` [RFC patch 3/4] x86: TSC: use one set of reference variables Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-04 15:18 ` [RFC patch 4/4] x86: TSC make the calibration loop smarter Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-04 15:36 ` [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements Ingo Molnar
2008-09-04 15:45   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 16:00     ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-04 16:21       ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 16:36         ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-04 17:41         ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 18:07           ` Alan Cox
2008-09-04 18:26             ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 18:30               ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-09-04 20:09               ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 20:43                 ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-04 20:52                   ` Ingo Molnar [this message]
2008-09-04 21:09                     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 21:21                       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-04 21:30                         ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 21:34                           ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 21:39                             ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-04 21:33                       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-05 22:18                         ` Alok Kataria
2008-09-05 22:34                           ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 20:03                             ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 20:29                               ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 20:37                                 ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 20:50                                   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 20:55                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 21:15                                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 21:22                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 21:30                                           ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 22:40                                       ` Ingo Molnar
2008-09-06 20:58                                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 21:10                                       ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-07  6:01                                         ` Willy Tarreau
2008-09-06 20:52                                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 20:59                                     ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 21:07                                       ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 21:15                                         ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-06 21:26                                           ` Thomas Gleixner
2008-09-06 21:32                                             ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 20:53                   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 21:38                 ` Alok Kataria
2008-09-04 21:52                   ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 22:09                     ` Alok Kataria
2008-09-04 17:39     ` Alok Kataria
2008-09-04 17:53       ` Linus Torvalds
2008-09-04 18:31         ` Alok Kataria
2008-09-04 18:34           ` H. Peter Anvin
2008-09-04 21:00   ` Valdis.Kletnieks

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=20080904205236.GA3864@elte.hu \
    --to=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl \
    --cc=akataria@vmware.com \
    --cc=alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk \
    --cc=arjan@infradead.org \
    --cc=hpa@zytor.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    --cc=torvalds@linux-foundation.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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox