linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/tsc_msr: Make MSR derived TSC frequency more accurate

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f69a2fb1-c22e-d885-43c6-0980ce187732@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 30 Jan 2020 16:56:42 +0100
From:   Hans de Goede <hdegoede@...hat.com>
To:     David Laight <David.Laight@...LAB.COM>,
        'Peter Zijlstra' <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andy@...radead.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Vipul Kumar <vipulk0511@...il.com>,
        Vipul Kumar <vipul_kumar@...tor.com>,
        Daniel Lezcano <daniel.lezcano@...aro.org>,
        Srikanth Krishnakar <Srikanth_Krishnakar@...tor.com>,
        Cedric Hombourger <Cedric_Hombourger@...tor.com>,
        Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
        "x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
        "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        "stable@...r.kernel.org" <stable@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] x86/tsc_msr: Make MSR derived TSC frequency more
 accurate

HI,

On 30-01-2020 16:21, David Laight wrote:
> From: Peter Zijlstra
>> Sent: 30 January 2020 13:43
> ...
>>> + * Bay Trail SDM MSR_FSB_FREQ frequencies simplified PLL model:
>>> + *  000:   100 *  5 /  6  =  83.3333 MHz
>>> + *  001:   100 *  1 /  1  = 100.0000 MHz
>>> + *  010:   100 *  4 /  3  = 133.3333 MHz
>>> + *  011:   100 *  7 /  6  = 116.6667 MHz
>>> + *  100:   100 *  4 /  5  =  80.0000 MHz
>>
>>> + * Cherry Trail SDM MSR_FSB_FREQ frequencies simplified PLL model:
>>> + * 0000:   100 *  5 /  6  =  83.3333 MHz
>>> + * 0001:   100 *  1 /  1  = 100.0000 MHz
>>> + * 0010:   100 *  4 /  3  = 133.3333 MHz
>>> + * 0011:   100 *  7 /  6  = 116.6667 MHz
>>> + * 0100:   100 *  4 /  5  =  80.0000 MHz
>>> + * 0101:   100 * 14 / 15  =  93.3333 MHz
>>> + * 0110:   100 *  9 / 10  =  90.0000 MHz
>>> + * 0111:   100 *  8 /  9  =  88.8889 MHz
>>> + * 1000:   100 *  7 /  8  =  87.5000 MHz
>>
>>> + * Merriefield (BYT MID) SDM MSR_FSB_FREQ frequencies simplified PLL model:
>>> + * 0001:   100 *  1 /  1  = 100.0000 MHz
>>> + * 0010:   100 *  4 /  3  = 133.3333 MHz
>>
>>> + * Moorefield (CHT MID) SDM MSR_FSB_FREQ frequencies simplified PLL model:
>>> + * 0000:   100 *  5 /  6  =  83.3333 MHz
>>> + * 0001:   100 *  1 /  1  = 100.0000 MHz
>>> + * 0010:   100 *  4 /  3  = 133.3333 MHz
>>> + * 0011:   100 *  1 /  1  = 100.0000 MHz
>>
>> Unless I'm going cross-eyed, that's 4 times the exact same table.
> 
> Apart from the very last line which duplicates 100MHz.
> And the fact that some entries are missing (presumed invalid?)
> for certain cpu.
> 
> If the tables are ever used for setting the frequency
> then the valid range (and values?) would need to be known.
> 
> I did wonder if the 'mask' was necessary?
> Are the unused bits reserved and zero?

They are reserved without having a defined value, the appear to
usually be 0 but I would rather not depend on that.

Regards,

Hans