[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20180531155210.GL12180@hirez.programming.kicks-ass.net>
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:52:10 +0200
From: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
To: Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>
Cc: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Alan Cox <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, alek.du@...el.com,
pasha.tatashin@...cle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC 2/2] x86, tsc: Enable clock for ealry printk timestamp
On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 03:55:42PM +0200, Petr Mladek wrote:
> I wonder if we could get some cleaner integration into the timer and
> printk code.
Yes, these patches are particularly horrific..
There were some earlier patches by Pavel Tatashin, which attempted do
get things running earlier.
http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20180209211143.16215-1-pasha.tatashin@oracle.com
I'm not entirely happy with that, but I never did get around to
reviewing that last version :-( In particuarly, now that you made me
look, I dislike his patch 6 almost as much as these patches.
The idea was to get regular sched_clock() running earlier, not to botch
some early_sched_clock() into it.
Basically run calibrate_tsc() earlier (like _waaay_ earlier, it doesn't
rely on anything other than CPUID) and if you have a recent part (with
exception of SKX) you'll get a usable tsc rate (and TSC_RELIABLE) and
things will work.
If you have a dodgy part (sorry SKX), you'll just have to live with
sched_clock starting late(r).
Do not cobble things on the side, try and get the normal things running
earlier.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists