lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [Nov]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [git pull] scheduler updates
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 02:50:18PM -0800, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > Patch being discussed on this thread (commit 0d12cdd) has a
> > regression on one of the test systems here.
> >
> > With the patch, I see
> >
> > checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]:
> > Measured 28 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC clock.
> > Marking TSC unstable due to check_tsc_sync_source failed
> >
> > Whereas, without the patch syncs pass fine on all CPUs
> >
> > checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#1]: passed.
> >
> > Due to this, TSC is marke unstable, when it is not actually unstable.
> > This is because syncs in check_tsc_wrap() goes away due to this commit.
> >
> > As per the discussion on this thread, correct way to fix this is to add
> > explicit syncs as below?
>
> ah. Yes.
>
> Could you please check whether:
>
> > + rdtsc_barrier();
> > start = get_cycles();
> > + rdtsc_barrier();
> > /*
> > * The measurement runs for 20 msecs:
> > */
> > @@ -61,7 +63,9 @@ static __cpuinit void check_tsc_warp(voi
> > */
> > __raw_spin_lock(&sync_lock);
> > prev = last_tsc;
> > + rdtsc_barrier();
> > now = get_cycles();
> > + rdtsc_barrier();
>
> adding the barrier just _after_ the get_cycles() call (but not before
> it) does the trick too? That should be enough in this case.
>

With barrier only after get_cycles, I do see syncs across first few CPUs
passing. But later I see:

checking TSC synchronization [CPU#0 -> CPU#13]:
Measured 4 cycles TSC warp between CPUs, turning off TSC clock.
Marking TSC unstable due to check_tsc_sync_source failed


Thanks,
Venki


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-11-18 00:07    [W:0.067 / U:0.160 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site