public inbox for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Scott Lampert <scott@lampert.org>
To: "Langsdorf, Mark" <mark.langsdorf@amd.com>
Cc: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
	lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	discuss@x86-64.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2005 12:24:20 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <433061E4.20903@lampert.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <84EA05E2CA77634C82730353CBE3A843032187C4@SAUSEXMB1.amd.com>

Langsdorf, Mark wrote:

>>On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 21:49 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:42:16PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
>>>      
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 2005-09-19 at 21:31 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, Sep 19, 2005 at 12:16:43PM -0700, john stultz wrote:
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>>>	This patch should resolve the issue seen in 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>bugme bug #5105, 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>where it is assumed that dualcore x86_64 systems have synced 
>>>>>>TSCs. This is not the case, and alternate timesources 
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>should be 
>>    
>>
>>>>>>used instead.
>>>>>>            
>>>>>>
>>>>>I asked AMD some time ago and they told me it was synchronized. 
>>>>>The TSC on K8 is C state invariant, but not P state 
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>invariant, but 
>>    
>>
>>>>>P states always happen synchronized on dual cores.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I'm not quite convinced of your explanation yet.
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>>>Would a litter userspace test checking the TSC 
>>>>        
>>>>
>>synchronization maybe 
>>    
>>
>>>>shed additional light on the issue?
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>Sure you can try it.
>>>      
>>>
>>So, bugzilla.kernel.org has (temporarily at least) lost the 
>>reports from yesterday, but from the email i got, folks using 
>>my TSC consistency check that I posted were seeing what 
>>appears to be unsynched TSCs on dualcore AMD systems.
>>    
>>
>
>My understanding was that each TSC on a dual-core processor
>will advance individually and atomically.  They will not 
>always be in synchronization.
>
>  
>
>>Personally I suspect that the powernow driver is putting the 
>>cores independently into low power sleep and the TSCs are 
>>being independently halted, causing them to become unsynchronized.
>>    
>>
>
>The powernow-k8 driver doesn't know what a low power sleep state
>is, so I strongly doubt it is involved here.  It only handles
>pstates.
> 
>-Mark Langsdorf
>K8 PowerNow! Maintainer
>AMD, Inc.
>
>  
>

Just to add some end-user input here, I see the same issues regardless 
of whether I'm running with the powernow-k8 or not.  The clock problems 
seem to be unrelated to that, at least on my system.
    -Scott

  reply	other threads:[~2005-09-20 19:24 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2005-09-20 19:13 [discuss] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs Langsdorf, Mark
2005-09-20 19:24 ` Scott Lampert [this message]
2005-09-20 19:30   ` john stultz
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-09-19 19:16 john stultz
2005-09-19 19:31 ` Andi Kleen
2005-09-19 19:42   ` john stultz
2005-09-19 19:49     ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2005-09-20 18:59       ` john stultz
2005-09-21  4:03         ` Daniel Jacobowitz
2005-09-21 15:15           ` Ray Bryant
2005-09-21 15:04             ` Andi Kleen
2005-09-21 15:46               ` Ray Bryant
2005-09-22  8:00                 ` Jonas Oreland
2005-09-21 20:17               ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-07 12:26 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-07 12:31   ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-07 14:15     ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-07 14:21       ` [discuss] " Velu Erwan

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=433061E4.20903@lampert.org \
    --to=scott@lampert.org \
    --cc=ak@suse.de \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
    --cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mark.langsdorf@amd.com \
    /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