[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAD8Lp46FgT6yoW9a4Yt8t=bVWzZbYHjw-Dqdk6Pvd2xzxfGHLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 14:16:02 +0800
From: Daniel Drake <drake@...lessm.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: "Lendacky, Thomas" <Thomas.Lendacky@....com>,
"Li, Aubrey" <aubrey.li@...ux.intel.com>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Endless Linux Upstreaming Team <linux@...lessm.com>,
Jiri Slaby <jslaby@...e.cz>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/apic: Handle missing global clockevent gracefully
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:54 PM Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> wrote:
> Some newer machines do not advertise legacy timers. The kernel can handle
> that situation if the TSC and the CPU frequency are enumerated by CPUID or
> MSRs and the CPU supports TSC deadline timer. If the CPU does not support
> TSC deadline timer the local APIC timer frequency has to be known as well.
>
> Some Ryzens machines do not advertize legacy timers, but there is no
> reliable way to determine the bus frequency which feeds the local APIC
> timer when the machine allows overclocking of that frequency.
>
> As there is no legacy timer the local APIC timer calibration crashes due to
> a NULL pointer dereference when accessing the not installed global clock
> event device.
>
> Switch the calibration loop to a non interrupt based one, which polls
> either TSC (frequency known) or jiffies. The latter requires a global
> clockevent. As the machines which do not have a global clockevent installed
> have a known TSC frequency this is a non issue. For older machines where
> TSC frequency is not known, there is no known case where the legacy timers
> do not exist as that would have been reported long ago.
This solves the problem I described in the thread:
setup_boot_APIC_clock() NULL dereference during early boot on
reduced hardware platforms
Thanks for your quick support!
> Note: Only lightly tested, but of course not on an affected machine.
>
> If that works reliably, then this needs some exhaustive testing
> on a wide range of systems so we can risk backports to stable
> kernels.
I can do a bit of testing on other platforms too. Are there any
specific tests I should run, other than checking that the system boots
and doesn't have any timer watchdog complaints in the log?
Thanks
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists