[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150424005133.GK13605@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 2015 17:51:33 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Alexander Shishkin <alexander.shishkin@...ux.intel.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
Don Zickus <dzickus@...hat.com>,
Frederic Weisbecker <fweisbec@...il.com>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, stable@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1] watchdog: Use a reference cycle counter to avoid
scaling issues
> We can just detect the deviation in the callback itself:
>
> u64 now = ktime_get_mono_fast_ns();
>
> if (now - __this_cpu_read(nmi_timestamp) < period)
> return;
>
> __this_cpu_write(nmi_timestamp, now);
>
> It's that simple.
It's a simple short term hac^wsolution. But if we had a (hypothetical) system with
let's say 10*TSC max you may end up with quite a few false ticks, as in
unnecessary interrupts. With 100*TSC it would be really bad.
There were systems in the past that ran TSC at a much slower frequency,
such as the early AMD Barcelona systems.
So the problem may eventually come back if not solved properly.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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