[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150602194350.GN1187@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 12:43:50 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in
quick_pit_calibrate()
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 12:41:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 12:33 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> > On Thu, 21 May 2015, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> >> If it takes longer than 12us to read the PIT counter lsb/msb,
> >> then the error margin will never fall below 500ppm within 50ms,
> >> and Fast TSC calibration will always fail.
> >
> > So finally the legacy PIT emulation takes longer than the 30 years old
> > hardware implementation. Progress!
> >
> >> This patch detects when that will happen and switches to using
> >> a slightly different algorithm that takes advantage of the PIT's
> >> latch comand.
> >
> > Is there really no smarter way to figure out the TSC frequency on
> > modern systems?
>
> I just asked Len this question yesterday. intel_pstate can do it,
> although the algorithm is a bit gross.
intel_pstate needs to know the model number. If you know the
model number sure you can do a lot better (e.g. using the
ref-clock fixed counter or some other methods)
But if you don't you need something else. And at some point
the only thing left over is the PIT.
-Andi
--
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