| 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
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2011 00:10:01 -0400 From: Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org> To: Luming Yu <luming.yu@...il.com> Cc: LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com> Subject: Re: what is the better method to do tsc synchronized check? [ Added Cc's of people that might help you. ] -- Steve On Wed, Mar 16, 2011 at 10:56:25PM -0400, Luming Yu wrote: > Hi there, > > I tested two different methods to do TSC sync check on a Sandy Bridge system. > The first TSC sync check method is from upstream -38-rc that considers > TSC is synced. > The second TSC sync check method is from a 2.6.18 based kernel that > considers TSC > is NOT synced on the Sandy Bridge system. (I modified sync_tsc() to > just test (not modify TSC) on > the cpu being tested.) > > [root@...el-sugarbay-DO-01 kernel]# dmesg | grep -i synchroniz > CPU 1: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff 29 cycles, maxerr 276 cycles) > CPU 2: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff 32 cycles, maxerr 280 cycles) > CPU 3: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff 31 cycles, maxerr 284 cycles) > > Do you guy think we need to take 2.6.18-based tsc sync testing method > rather than the current one in upstream? > > Any inputs are appreciated. > > > Thanks > Luming > -- -- 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