lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2021]   [Nov]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH v3 2/2] x86/tsc: skip tsc watchdog checking for qualified platforms
On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 09:39:32PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Can you folks please trim your replies? Finding content in the middle of
> quoted nonsense becomes harder with every mail in this thread.
>
> On Tue, Nov 30 2021 at 08:28, Paul E. McKenney wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2021 at 11:02:56PM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> >> For this case, I don't have access to the HW and only have the
> >> dmesg log, from which it seems the watchdog timer has been postponed
> >> a very long time from running.
> >
> > Thank you for the analysis!
> >
> > One approach to handle this situation would be to avoid checking for
> > clock skew if the time since the last watchdog read was more than (say)
> > twice the desired watchdog spacing. This does leave open the question of
> > exactly which clocksource to use to measure the time between successive
> > clocksource reads. My thought is to check this only once upon entry to
> > the handler and to use the designated-good clocksource.
> >
> > Does that make sense, or would something else work better?
>
> Seriously. Jiffies is not usable as watchdog simply because lost ticks
> cannot be compensated and you cannot use TSC to bridge them because you
> are not trusting TSC. This is simply a circulus vitiosus.

OK, HPET or nothing, then.

> We really need to remove the watchdog requirement for modern hardware.
> Let me stare at those patches and get them merged.

You are more trusting of modern hardware than I am, but for all I know,
maybe rightfully so. ;-)

Thanx, Paul

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2021-11-30 21:49    [W:1.760 / U:0.044 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site