Re: [PATCH 13/15] sched: Use a static_key for sched_clock_stable

[Sasha Levin <sasha.levin@oracle.com>]

On 01/22/2014 08:14 AM, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
> On 2014.01.22 at 13:30 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:26:09PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>> > >On 2014.01.22 at 13:07 +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>> > > >On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 01:00:48PM +0100, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote:
>>>>> > > > >FYI it happens on real hardware on my machine:
>>>>> > > > >...
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] Hierarchical RCU implementation.
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] NR_IRQS:4352 nr_irqs:712 16
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] spurious 8259A interrupt: IRQ7.
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] Console: colour VGA+ 80x25
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] console [tty0] enabled
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] hpet clockevent registered
>>>>> > > > >[    0.000000] tsc: Fast TSC calibration using PIT
>>>>> > > > >[    0.003333] tsc: Detected 3210.681 MHz processor
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375238] Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 6423.91 BogoMIPS (lpj=10702270)
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375240] pid_max: default: 32768 minimum: 301
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375259] Mount-cache hash table entries: 256
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375373] tseg: 0000000000
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375377] CPU: Physical Processor ID: 0
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375377] CPU: Processor Core ID: 0
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375378] mce: CPU supports 6 MCE banks
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375382] LVT offset 0 assigned for vector 0xf9
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375384] process: using AMD E400 aware idle routine
>>>>> > > > >[   60.375386] Last level iTLB entries: 4KB 512, 2MB 16, 4MB 8
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >Should have always happened like that I think. From the log it looks
>>>> > > >like the moment we switch from jiffies to actual TSC in
>>>> > > >arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c:sched_clock().
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > >I don't think I changed the logic there, just switched from a condition
>>>> > > >to a jump_label.
>>> > >
>>> > >Well, v3.13 was fine. So it's definitely a regression. But it may be
>>> > >another issue. I will try to bisect later.
>> >
>> >OK, weird, I'll see if I can spot anything.
> Unfortunately the issue is unbisectable (but the remaining commits are
> all yours):

I've actually bisected it previously by fixing the build errors manually, and that took me
to this patch you see in the subject line :)


Thanks,
Sasha