[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20170929184104.GX6524@worktop.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Fri, 29 Sep 2017 20:41:04 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Mike Travis <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,
kevin.b.stanton@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/4] x86/platform/UV: Update TSC support
On Fri, Sep 29, 2017 at 10:39:28AM -0700, Mike Travis wrote:
> >That's where it comes from. But normal systems really _should_ have it
> >at 0 and its a useful sanity check IMO. We really want to know when the
> >BIOS does a funny behind our backs.
> >
>
> How about a more generic flag, such as "multi_tsc_sync_sources"? That could
> trigger both disabling the "TSC == 0 on socket 0" check as well as disabling
> X86_FEATURE_ART where appropriate? Or I could clear the feature ART cap
> separately in the UV system init code if they are not really related?
I _think_ the X86_FEATURE_ART is an artificial flag. We key off of
cpuid_level here.
So that multi_tsc_sync_sources or a more explicit is_uv_system() would
be required.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists