[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080725134831.GB28466@lenovo>
Date: Fri, 25 Jul 2008 17:48:31 +0400
From: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
To: Martin Wilck <martin.wilck@...itsu-siemens.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
"Wichert, Gerhard" <Gerhard.Wichert@...itsu-siemens.com>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86 (64): make calibrate_APIC_clock() SMI-safe (take 2)
[Martin Wilck - Fri, Jul 25, 2008 at 03:38:47PM +0200]
> I wrote:
>
>> I have to say that my simplified patch failed to do the calibration
>> correctly on our test system (the original patch worked well). Please
>> stay tuned, we are investigating this currently.
>
> Please forget that. It was observed on an old "enterprise" kernel with
> which we are currently testing the backported patch with, and it was due
> to the fact that the initial counter value on that kernel was divided by
> APIC_DIVISOR (=16). The resulting initial counter value was too low in a
> "SMI flood" case, the counter could overlap. APIC_DIVISOR is no longer
> used in the current kernel.
>
> Martin
>
> --
Martin, if I understood you right - this means your patch is not
needed? Actually on 64bit mode APIC_DIVISOR is a bit hidden in
__setup_APIC_LVTT - you may see it as APIC_TDR_DIV_16 while setting
up divisor register. I was proposing patch for that but it leaded
to potetntial overflow (thanks Ingo for catching) so we leave it as
is. Maybe I miss something?
- Cyrill -
--
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists