linux-kernel - Re: [BUG] perf: perf sched warning possibly due to clock granularity on AMD

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: <CABeCy1ZH_BQhoSegeyBnY0XkjL9afm5=onKrmt9SApufCWgs3A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:19:44 -0800
From:	Venki Pallipadi <venki@...gle.com>
To:	Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org>
Cc:	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Stephane Eranian <eranian@...gle.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, acme@...hat.com, mingo@...e.hu,
	robert.richter@....com, eric.dumazet@...il.com,
	Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@....com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] perf: perf sched warning possibly due to clock granularity
 on AMD

On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Borislav Petkov <bp@...64.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 09:31:33PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 21:27 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > On Mon, Feb 06, 2012 at 05:54:19PM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 2012-02-06 at 17:46 +0100, Borislav Petkov wrote:
>> > > > > across all CPUs in the entire system.
>> > > >
>> > > > Right, by the "entire system" you mean consistent across cores and
>> > > > sockets but not necessarily across cabinets, as in the comment above,
>> > > > correct?
>> > > >
>> > > > If so, let me ask around if this holds true too.
>> > >
>> > > Every CPU available to the kernel. So if you run a single system image
>> > > across your cabinets, then yes those too.
>> >
>> > Ok, but what about that sentence "(but not across cabinets - we turn
>> > it off in that case explicitly.)" - I don't see any place where it is
>> > turned off explicitly... Maybe a stale comment?
>>
>> I suspect it might be the sched_clock_stable = 0 in mark_tsc_unstable(),
>> but lets ask Venki, IIRC he wrote all that.
>
> Yeah, I was looking at the code further and on Intel it does:
>
>        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;
>        }
>
> while on AMD, in early_init_amd() we do:
>
>        if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
>                set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
>                set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC);
>        }
>
> and having in mind that tsc_unstable is set on generic x86 paths,
> nothing stops us to do the same on AMD too, and as a result, set
> sched_clock_stable too.
>
> But yeah, let's see what Venki has to say first.
>

Looks like cabinet comment came from Ingo (commit 83ce4009) in reference to
    (We will turn this off in DMI quirks for multi-chassis systems)

Yes. If these two flags are set, TSC should be consistent and sched_clock_stable
could be set and it will be reset if there is a call to mark_tsc_unstable().

Thanks,
Venki
--
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/