[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20090322124818.GA31466@elte.hu>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2009 13:48:18 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
Cc: Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: don't compile vsmp_64 for 32bit
* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:30AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> True, but by how much? 212 bytes, out of 7285943 bytes which
> >> is very very small percentage wise.
> >
> >How does this eliminate the validity of the patch?
> >
>
> It costs 212 bytes to leave is_vsmp_box() to not just be a dummy
> no-op. Having is_vsmp_box() detect if the hardware is indeed vSMP,
> is meaningful even when CONFIG_VSMP is not turned on. This is
> because is_vsmp_box() is used to tell the kernel, that although
> the cpus being used are supposed to have TSCs in sync, they are
> not really in sync. This is because you cannot ensure TSCs won't
> drift between multiple boards being aggregated on vSMP systems.
> Take the case of distro kernels. Distro kernels typically do not
> have CONFIG_X86_VSMP on. Due to the large internode cacheline
> setting, CONFIG_VSMP would not be on on the generic distro
> installer kernels. If is_vsmp_box() is a no-op, the generic distro
> installer kernels will assume TSCs to be synched, which is bad.
> Hence, it will be nice if, for the cost of 212 bytes, vsmp64.o be
> compiled either unconditionally, OR conditionally for 64bit
> architectures only. The question is, is 212 bytes out of 7285943
> bytes too expensive for the generic kernels? I hope not.
Sorry - got distracted and forgot about this thread. The TSC quirk
indeed looks required for your systems - you dont have a reliable
TSC due to virtualization, right?
Mind sending a patch (partial revert or so) against latest -tip that
fixes that?
Ingo
--
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