[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170929084632.gfwugbeaonraadp3@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 10:46:32 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: mike.travis@....com
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Bin Gao <bin.gao@...ux.intel.com>,
Prarit Bhargava <prarit@...hat.com>,
Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@....com>,
Andrew Banman <andrew.banman@....com>,
Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@....com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/platform/UV: Update TSC support
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 01:03:39PM -0500, mike.travis@....com wrote:
>
> The UV BIOS goes to considerable effort to get the TSC synchronization
> accurate across the entire system. Included in that are multiple chassis
> that can have 32+ sockets. The architecture does support an external
> high resolution clock to aid in maintaining this synchronization.
>
> The resulting TSC accuracy set by the UV system BIOS is much better
> than the generic kernel TSC ADJUST functions. This is important for
> applications that read the TSC values directly for accessing data bases.
>
> * These patches disable an assumption made by the kernel tsc sync
> functions that Socket 0 in the system should have a TSC ADJUST
> value of zero. This is not correct when the chassis are reset
> asynchronously to each other so which TSC's should be zero is
> not predictable.
>
> * When the system BIOS determines that the TSC is not stable, it then
> sets a flag so the UV kernel setup can set the "tsc is unstable"
> flag. A patch now prevents the kernel from attempting to fix the
> TSC causing a slew of warning messages.
>
> * It also eliminates another avalanche of warning messages from older
> BIOS that did not have the TSC ADJUST MSR (ex. >3000 msgs in a 32
> socket Skylake system). It now notes this with a single warning
> message and then moves on with fixing them.
So I would still like to get clarification on how ART works (or likely
doesn't) on your systems. I think for now its fairly prudent to kill
detect_art() on UV.
Also, while indeed not strictly required, that TSC_ADJUST==0 test on
bootcpu is nice for consumer systems, BIOS did something 'weird' if that
is not true. Is something like is_uv_system() available early enough?
Other than that, the patches look good to me.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists