[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170927180950.GD439@worktop>
Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2017 20:09:50 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Dou Liyang <douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com>
Cc: Pasha Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>, linux@...linux.org.uk,
schwidefsky@...ibm.com, heiko.carstens@...ibm.com,
john.stultz@...aro.org, sboyd@...eaurora.org, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, mingo@...hat.com, tglx@...utronix.de,
hpa@...or.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v6 1/4] sched/clock: interface to allow timestamps early
in boot
On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 08:05:48PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2017 at 09:52:36PM +0800, Dou Liyang wrote:
> > We do not want to do that. Because, we use "notsc" to support Dynamic
> > Reconfiguration[1].
> >
> > AFAIK, this feature enables hot-add system board which contains CPUs
> > and memories. But the CPUs in different board may have different TSCs
> > which are not consistent with the TSC from the existing CPUs. If we hot-add
> > a board directly, the machine may happen the inconsistency of
> > TSC.
> >
> > We make our effort to specify the same TSC value as existing one through
> > hardware and firmware, but it is hard. So we recommend to specify
> > "notsc" option in command line for users who want to use Dynamic
> > Reconfiguration.
>
> Oh gawd, that's horrific. And in my book a good reason to kill that
> option.
That is, even with unsynchronized TSC we're better off using RDTSC. The
whole mess in kernel/sched/clock.c is all about getting semi sensible
results out of unsynchronized TSC.
There really is no reason to artificially kill TSC usage.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists