linux-kernel - Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements

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]

Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809041114030.3400@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date:	Thu, 4 Sep 2008 11:26:43 -0700 (PDT)
From:	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
cc:	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
	Arjan van de Veen <arjan@...radead.org>,
	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>
Subject: Re: [RFC patch 0/4] TSC calibration improvements

On Thu, 4 Sep 2008, Alan Cox wrote:
>
> > (And yes, I do the latching - it's not reqlly required since I only depend 
> > on the MSB, and it actually makes for slightly lower precision, but it's 
> > the "safe" thing. And I figured out that the reason I thought that the 
> 
> Good job you don't. Various Cyrix/Geode chipsets have as errata #2
> 
> "Counter latch command is non-operational in the 8254 timer"

Yeah, I had some memory of latch issues. I wrote the thing originally 
without the latching, which is why the whole thing is designed to igore 
the low cycle count. I just decided that doing the latching shouldn't 
hurt that much, even if it ends up being just a 1us no-op.

It does mean that on any normal hardware, the expected error is roughly 
3us over 2048 PIT ticks, which if I do the math right (nominal PIT 
frequency: 1193182 Hz) is just under 0.2%. Or put another way, ~1750 ppm.

Not doing the latching should make the expected error go down to 2us.

Of course, the 2048 PIT ticks is just a random choice. It could be any 
multiple of 256 ticks, so that error can be made smaller. Maybe it's worth 
spending 10ms on this, and get it down by a factor of five (at which point 
the error on the PIT frequency is probably in the same order of 
magnitude).

			Linus
--
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/