[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aff10f33-b379-6872-f180-b38f6a0a669a@intel.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2022 07:23:10 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>
To: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>, Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
"H . Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, rui.zhang@...el.com,
tim.c.chen@...el.com, Xiongfeng Wang <wangxiongfeng2@...wei.com>,
Yu Liao <liaoyu15@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86/tsc: Extend the watchdog check exemption to 4S/8S
machine
On 10/9/22 18:23, Feng Tang wrote:
>>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
>>> index cafacb2e58cc..b4ea79cb1d1a 100644
>>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
>>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c
>>> @@ -1217,7 +1217,7 @@ static void __init check_system_tsc_reliable(void)
>>> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC) &&
>>> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC) &&
>>> boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST) &&
>>> - nr_online_nodes <= 2)
>>> + nr_online_nodes <= 8)
>> So you're saying all 8 socket systems since Broadwell (?) are TSC
>> sync'ed ?
> No, I didn't mean that. I haven't got chance to any 8 sockets
> machine, and I got a report last month that on one 8S machine,
> the TSC was judged 'unstable' by HPET as watchdog.
That's not a great check. Think about numa=fake=4U, for instance. Or a
single-socket system with persistent memory and high bandwidth memory.
Basically 'nr_online_nodes' is a software construct. It's going to be
really hard to infer anything from it about what the _hardware_ is.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists