Linux kernel -stable discussions
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: <chenhc@lemote.com>, <Steven.Hill@imgtec.com>,
	<aurelien@aurel32.net>, <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>,
	<ralf@linux-mips.org>, <wuzhangjin@gmail.com>,
	<zhangfx@lemote.com>
Cc: <stable@vger.kernel.org>, <stable-commits@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Patch "MIPS: hpet: Choose a safe value for the ETIME check" has been added to the 4.4-stable tree
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2016 19:10:16 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <145685941012550@kroah.com> (raw)


This is a note to let you know that I've just added the patch titled

    MIPS: hpet: Choose a safe value for the ETIME check

to the 4.4-stable tree which can be found at:
    http://www.kernel.org/git/?p=linux/kernel/git/stable/stable-queue.git;a=summary

The filename of the patch is:
     mips-hpet-choose-a-safe-value-for-the-etime-check.patch
and it can be found in the queue-4.4 subdirectory.

If you, or anyone else, feels it should not be added to the stable tree,
please let <stable@vger.kernel.org> know about it.


>From 5610b1254e3689b6ef8ebe2db260709a74da06c8 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2016 21:09:50 +0800
Subject: MIPS: hpet: Choose a safe value for the ETIME check

From: Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>

commit 5610b1254e3689b6ef8ebe2db260709a74da06c8 upstream.

This patch is borrowed from x86 hpet driver and explaind below:

Due to the overly intelligent design of HPETs, we need to workaround
the problem that the compare value which we write is already behind
the actual counter value at the point where the value hits the real
compare register. This happens for two reasons:

1) We read out the counter, add the delta and write the result to the
   compare register. When a NMI hits between the read out and the write
   then the counter can be ahead of the event already.

2) The write to the compare register is delayed by up to two HPET
   cycles in AMD chipsets.

We can work around this by reading back the compare register to make
sure that the written value has hit the hardware. But that is bad
performance wise for the normal case where the event is far enough in
the future.

As we already know that the write can be delayed by up to two cycles
we can avoid the read back of the compare register completely if we
make the decision whether the delta has elapsed already or not based
on the following calculation:

  cmp = event - actual_count;

If cmp is less than 64 HPET clock cycles, then we decide that the event
has happened already and return -ETIME. That covers the above #1 and #2
problems which would cause a wait for HPET wraparound (~306 seconds).

Signed-off-by: Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>
Cc: Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>
Cc: Steven J. Hill <Steven.Hill@imgtec.com>
Cc: Fuxin Zhang <zhangfx@lemote.com>
Cc: Zhangjin Wu <wuzhangjin@gmail.com>
Cc: Huacai Chen <chenhc@lemote.com>
Cc: linux-mips@linux-mips.org
Patchwork: https://patchwork.linux-mips.org/patch/12162/
Signed-off-by: Ralf Baechle <ralf@linux-mips.org>
Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>

---
 arch/mips/loongson64/loongson-3/hpet.c |   10 +++++++---
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

--- a/arch/mips/loongson64/loongson-3/hpet.c
+++ b/arch/mips/loongson64/loongson-3/hpet.c
@@ -13,6 +13,9 @@
 #define SMBUS_PCI_REG64		0x64
 #define SMBUS_PCI_REGB4		0xb4
 
+#define HPET_MIN_CYCLES		64
+#define HPET_MIN_PROG_DELTA	(HPET_MIN_CYCLES + (HPET_MIN_CYCLES >> 1))
+
 static DEFINE_SPINLOCK(hpet_lock);
 DEFINE_PER_CPU(struct clock_event_device, hpet_clockevent_device);
 
@@ -161,8 +164,9 @@ static int hpet_next_event(unsigned long
 	cnt += delta;
 	hpet_write(HPET_T0_CMP, cnt);
 
-	res = ((int)(hpet_read(HPET_COUNTER) - cnt) > 0) ? -ETIME : 0;
-	return res;
+	res = (int)(cnt - hpet_read(HPET_COUNTER));
+
+	return res < HPET_MIN_CYCLES ? -ETIME : 0;
 }
 
 static irqreturn_t hpet_irq_handler(int irq, void *data)
@@ -237,7 +241,7 @@ void __init setup_hpet_timer(void)
 	cd->cpumask = cpumask_of(cpu);
 	clockevent_set_clock(cd, HPET_FREQ);
 	cd->max_delta_ns = clockevent_delta2ns(0x7fffffff, cd);
-	cd->min_delta_ns = 5000;
+	cd->min_delta_ns = clockevent_delta2ns(HPET_MIN_PROG_DELTA, cd);
 
 	clockevents_register_device(cd);
 	setup_irq(HPET_T0_IRQ, &hpet_irq);


Patches currently in stable-queue which might be from chenhc@lemote.com are

queue-4.4/mips-loongson-3-fix-smp_ask_c0count-ipi-handler.patch
queue-4.4/mips-hpet-choose-a-safe-value-for-the-etime-check.patch
queue-4.4/mips-fix-some-missing-config_cpu_mipsr6-ifdefs.patch

                 reply	other threads:[~2016-03-01 19:10 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed

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=145685941012550@kroah.com \
    --to=gregkh@linuxfoundation.org \
    --cc=Steven.Hill@imgtec.com \
    --cc=aurelien@aurel32.net \
    --cc=chenhc@lemote.com \
    --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    --cc=stable-commits@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=stable@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=wuzhangjin@gmail.com \
    --cc=zhangfx@lemote.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