From: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
To: George Spelvin <linux@horizon.com>
Cc: adrian.hunter@intel.com, ak@linux.intel.com,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, luto@amacapital.net,
tglx@linutronix.de, torvalds@linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in quick_pit_calibrate()
Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2015 11:48:48 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <556F4C10.7050005@zytor.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150603182936.16475.qmail@ns.horizon.com>
On 06/03/2015 11:29 AM, George Spelvin wrote:
>
> Indeed, it's the only one which is guaranteed a separate crystal.
> Many low-cost chipsets generate ALL other frequencies from one crystal
> with PLLs.
>
Not guaranteed either, and I know for a fact there are platforms out
there which synthesize the RTC clock.
> But as I mentioned earlier, you *can* get higher frequencies with
> interrupts *or* polling. When you program the periodic event frequency
> (from 2 to 8192 Hz), it does three things at that rate:
>
> 1) Periodic interrupts (if enabled),
> 2) Square wave output (if enabled, and relevant to discrete chips only), and
> 3) Sets the PE bit (register C, bit 6), which is auto-cleared on read.
Ah, I wasn't aware of the PF (not PE) bit. That suddenly makes it a lot
more interesting. So polling for the PF bit suddenly makes sense, and
is probably the single best option for calibration.
> So if you're willing to poll the device (which the TSC calibration does
> already), you can get high resolution tick edges without interrupts.
>
> Because it's only one read (port 0x71), it's slightly faster than the PIT.
>
> (I also wish we could use all those TSC reads for initial entropy seeding
> somehow.)
Well, on x86 hopefully the entropy problem should soon be history...
-hpa
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-06-03 18:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 65+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-06-03 6:27 [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in quick_pit_calibrate() George Spelvin
2015-06-03 18:29 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-03 18:48 ` H. Peter Anvin [this message]
2015-06-03 19:07 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-04 16:38 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-04 16:52 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-04 17:54 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-04 18:07 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-05 5:52 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-05 6:16 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-05 5:58 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-05 8:24 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-05 8:31 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-05 20:17 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-06 21:50 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-09 6:54 ` [RFC PATCH] Make quick_pit_calibrate more robust George Spelvin
2015-06-09 9:13 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-09 9:54 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 7:08 ` Discussion: quick_pit_calibrate is slow George Spelvin
2015-06-10 7:30 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-10 8:47 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 9:25 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-10 15:43 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 15:56 ` Arjan van de Ven
2015-06-10 16:27 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 18:38 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 19:30 ` Arjan van de Ven
2015-06-10 22:19 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 8:13 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-10 8:55 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 9:12 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-10 16:11 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-10 7:32 ` Discussion: quick_pit_calibrate isn't quick George Spelvin
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2015-05-21 7:55 [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in quick_pit_calibrate() Adrian Hunter
2015-06-01 7:57 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-02 13:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 19:33 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 19:41 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-02 19:43 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-02 19:58 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 20:03 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-02 20:20 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-02 21:03 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-02 23:38 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-03 0:21 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-03 0:39 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-03 0:58 ` Andy Lutomirski
2015-06-03 3:30 ` Andi Kleen
2015-06-03 8:13 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-03 13:45 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-04 11:28 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-03 16:23 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-22 11:21 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-06-22 13:14 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-07-06 6:48 ` Adrian Hunter
2015-07-06 7:42 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-22 14:12 ` George Spelvin
2015-06-03 4:20 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-03 6:20 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-03 13:43 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-03 16:47 ` Thomas Gleixner
2015-06-03 17:04 ` Linus Torvalds
2015-06-03 17:50 ` H. Peter Anvin
2015-06-04 12:32 ` Ingo Molnar
2015-06-03 17:06 ` Ingo Molnar
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=556F4C10.7050005@zytor.com \
--to=hpa@zytor.com \
--cc=adrian.hunter@intel.com \
--cc=ak@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@horizon.com \
--cc=luto@amacapital.net \
--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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).