[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1809181237140.4167@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Tue, 18 Sep 2018 12:41:57 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
cc: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...nel.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>,
Matt Rickard <matt@...trans.com.au>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
Florian Weimer <fweimer@...hat.com>,
"K. Y. Srinivasan" <kys@...rosoft.com>,
Vitaly Kuznetsov <vkuznets@...hat.com>,
devel@...uxdriverproject.org,
Linux Virtualization <virtualization@...ts.linux-foundation.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>, Juergen Gross <jgross@...e.com>
Subject: Re: [patch 09/11] x86/vdso: Simplify the invalid vclock case
On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2018, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> > > > Your memory serves you right. That's indeed observable on CPUs which
> > > > lack TSC_ADJUST.
> > >
> > > But, if the gtod code can observe this, then why doesn't the code that
> > > checks the sync?
> >
> > Because it depends where the involved CPUs are in the topology. The sync
> > code might just run on the same package an simply not see it. Yes, w/o
> > TSC_ADJUST the TSC sync code can just fail to see the havoc.
>
> Even with TSC adjust the TSC can be slightly off by design on multi-socket
> systems.
Here are the gory details:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/3c1737210708230408i7a8049a9m5db49e6c4d89ab62@mail.gmail.com/
The changelog has an explanation as well.
d8bb6f4c1670 ("x86: tsc prevent time going backwards")
I still have one of the machines which is affected by this.
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists