[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y6OKOI5QhPws0wgY@cae.in-ulm.de>
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2022 23:35:36 +0100
From: "Christian A. Ehrhardt" <lk@...e.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...el.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Rishabh Agrawal <rishabhagr@...omium.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, len.brown@...el.com,
drake@...lessm.com, rafael.j.wysocki@...el.com, mingo@...hat.com,
vaibhav.shankar@...el.com, biernacki@...gle.com,
zwisler@...gle.com, mattedavis@...gle.com,
Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>,
Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>, x86@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] Add hardcoded crystal clock for KabyLake
Hi,
On Mon, Nov 14, 2022 at 11:58:54PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20 2022 at 10:18, Dave Hansen wrote:
> > On 10/20/22 10:13, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >> And why, pray *WHY* can't Intel simply write the correct information in
> >> CPUID leaf 15h. I mean, they defined the leaf, might as well use it, no?
> >
> > Is the data that's in the leaf just wrong? Doesn't that mean that the
> > CPUID leaf on these models is violating the architecture contract? That
> > sounds like something that deserves an erratum.
> >
> > Is there a documented erratum?
>
> I don't know. The code has this comment:
>
> /*
> * Some Intel SoCs like Skylake and Kabylake don't report the crystal
> * clock, but we can easily calculate it to a high degree of accuracy
> * by considering the crystal ratio and the CPU speed.
> */
Latest (April 2022) version of the SDM clearly states that the
above comment is wrong. CPUID.16h has the following note:
| Data is returned from this interface in accordance with the processor's
| specification and does not reflect actual values. Suitable use of this
| data includes the display of processor information in like manner to the
| processor brand string and for determining the appropriate range to use
| when displaying processor information e.g. frequency history graphs. The
| returned information should not be used for any other purpose as the
| returned information does not accurately correlate to information /
| counters returned by other processor interfaces.
Thus using CPUID.16h to determine the crystal clock frequency is wrong.
This difference is significant. I have one Kaby Lake latop where
the CPUID.16h reported frequency is 1900MHz but the real frequency is
only 1896MHz. This amounts to a time drift of about 8s/hour if the
wrong TSC frequency is used for time keeping.
Basically, I think this commit:
604dc9170 (x86/tsc: Use CPUID.0x16 to calculate ...)
needs to be reverted.
> so those SoCs fail to expose clock in leaf 15h and then the information
> in leaf 16h is so inaccurate that the calculation is off.
>
> Sigh. It's 2022 and we are still relying on crystalball mechanisms to
> figure out the damned crystal frequency.
>
> The specification of leaf 15h is:
>
> 15H Time Stamp Counter and Nominal Core Crystal Clock Information Leaf
> NOTES:
> If EBX[31:0] is 0, the TSC/”core crystal clock” ratio is not enumerated.
> If ECX is 0, the nominal core crystal clock frequency is not enumerated.
>
> IOW, this CPUID leaf is defined to be useless and leaves it up to the
> SoC integration to provide this information or not. It needs even two
> fields to chose from to make it useless...
The SDM (now?) has some hints on how to do this. This is hidden here:
Vol.3 Chapter 19.7.3: Determining the Processor Base Frequency
This chapter contains a table that lists the correct crystal clock
frequencies for CPU models that do not enumerate it via CPUID.15h.
regards Christian
Powered by blists - more mailing lists