linux-kernel - RE: [PATCH] x86-64 highres/dyntick support

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 8 May 2007 06:15:38 -0700
From:	"Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>
To:	"Chris Wright" <chrisw@...s-sol.org>,
	"Thomas Gleixner" <tglx@...utronix.de>
CC:	"LKML" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"john stultz" <johnstul@...ibm.com>, "Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...e.hu>,
	"Arjan van de Ven" <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"Steven Rostedt" <rostedt@...dmis.org>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@...e.de>,
	"Andrew Morton" <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
Subject: RE: [PATCH] x86-64 highres/dyntick support

 

>-----Original Message-----
>From: Chris Wright [mailto:chrisw@...s-sol.org] 
>Sent: Tuesday, May 08, 2007 2:52 AM
>To: Thomas Gleixner
>Cc: Chris Wright; LKML; Pallipadi, Venkatesh; john stultz; 
>Ingo Molnar; Arjan van de Ven; Steven Rostedt; Andi Kleen; 
>Andrew Morton
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86-64 highres/dyntick support
>
>* Thomas Gleixner (tglx@...utronix.de) wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-05-08 at 02:39 -0700, Chris Wright wrote:
>> 
>> > OK, looks very similar all things considered.  One thing I 
>didn't do
>> > was fix lapic timer calibration (was hoping you'd do that 
>part, and you
>> > did ;-)  I've noticed that something has changed and I'm 
>seeing irq0
>> > handled on cpu3 (4 cpu system), where it used to be on 
>cpu0 as expected.
>> 
>> Strange, irq balancing ?
>
>That's what I was wondering, although i have same setup for 32-bit
>and it behaves as expected with cpu0 taking hpet or pit on irq0
>and lapic timer picked up on the other 3 cpus.
>

Yes. Looks like irq balancing issue. On i386 I see irq has flag
IRQF_NOBALANCING, but x86-64 does not have this flag. Can you add that
and check whether that makes any difference.

Thanks,
Venki
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/