[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20120206153408.GA31237@aftab>
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 16:34:08 +0100
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
robert.richter@....com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>,
Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: perf sched warning possibly due to clock granularity
on AMD
+ Andreas.
On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 03:26:43PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 14:25 +0100, Stephane Eranian wrote:
> > In summary, two issues:
> > - Why is sched_clock_stable not set or even tested on recent AMD systems?
AFAICT, sched_clock_stable is set on Intel under the following conditions:
/*
* c->x86_power is 8000_0007 edx. Bit 8 is TSC runs at constant rate
* with P/T states and does not stop in deep C-states.
*
* It is also reliable across cores and sockets. (but not across
* cabinets - we turn it off in that case explicitly.)
*/
if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC);
if (!check_tsc_unstable())
sched_clock_stable = 1;
}
and yes, we can do CONSTANT_TSC and NONSTOP_TSC on the now older F10h
already, so Bulldozer can do that too, implicitly.
I don't see why sched_clock_stable shouldn't be moved to generic x86
code and set based on the two CPUID cap flags above.
HTH.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
Advanced Micro Devices GmbH
Einsteinring 24, 85609 Dornach
GM: Alberto Bozzo
Reg: Dornach, Landkreis Muenchen
HRB Nr. 43632 WEEE Registernr: 129 19551
--
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