[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4BCC4006.8000501@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 14:35:34 +0300
From: Avi Kivity <avi@...hat.com>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
CC: Glauber Costa <glommer@...hat.com>, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>,
Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@...hat.com>,
Zachary Amsden <zamsden@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] Add a global synchronization point for pvclock
On 04/19/2010 01:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> So what do we need? test for both TSC_RELIABLE and NONSTOP_TSC? IMO
>> TSC_RELIABLE should imply NONSTOP_TSC.
>>
> Yeah, I think RELIABLE does imply NONSTOP and CONSTANT, but NONSTOP&&
> CONSTANT does not make RELIABLE.
>
The manual says:
> 16.11.1 Invariant TSC
>
> The time stamp counter in newer processors may support an enhancement,
> referred
> to as invariant TSC. Processor’s support for invariant TSC is indicated by
> CPUID.80000007H:EDX[8].
> The invariant TSC will run at a constant rate in all ACPI P-, C-. and
> T-states. This is
> the architectural behavior moving forward. On processors with
> invariant TSC
> support, the OS may use the TSC for wall clock timer services (instead
> of ACPI or
> HPET timers). TSC reads are much more efficient and do not incur the
> overhead
> associated with a ring transition or access to a platform resource.
and this maps to NONSTOP, so I think we're fine.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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