[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1508312328220.15006@nanos>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2015 23:47:52 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Shaohua Li <shli@...com>
cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Richard Cochran <richardcochran@...il.com>,
Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Clark Williams <williams@...hat.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 8/9] clocksource: Improve unstable clocksource
detection
On Mon, 31 Aug 2015, Shaohua Li wrote:
> > The HPET wraps interval is 0xffffffff / 100000000 = 42.9s
> >
> > tsc interval is (0x481250b45b - 0x219e6efb50) / 2200000000 = 75s
> >
> > 32.1 + 42.9 = 75
> >
> > The example shows hpet wraps, while tsc is marked unstable
>
> Thomas & John,
> Is this data enough to prove TSC unstable issue can be triggered by HPET
> wrap? I can resend the patch with the data included.
Well, it's enough data to prove:
- that keeping a VM off the CPU for 75 seconds is insane.
- that emulating the HPET with 100MHz shortens the HPET wraparound by
a factor of 7 compared to real hardware. With a realist HPET
frequency you have about 300 seconds.
Who though that using 100MHz HPET frequency is a brilliant idea?
So we should add crappy heuristics to the watchdog just to workaround
virt insanities? I'm not convinced.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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