Re: [PATCH] Re: x86_32 tsc/pit and hrtimers

[Chris Snook]

Alok kataria wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, 9 Oct 2008, Jeff Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > OK, so are we all agreed that something like clocksource_trust=tsc would be
> > > the best?
> > No, it's per affected device: tsc=trust or tsc=stable or whatever
> > unintuitive name we want to come up. And it is a modification to TSC
> > not to the clocksource layer.
>
> Yep, this is cool. I too have a patch in my local tree which does a
> similar thing i have a tsc_reliable flag which is set right now only
> when we are running under a VMware hypervisor.
> Along with marking the no_verify flag for TSC, this patch of mine also
> skips the TSC synchornization checks.
>
>         The TSC synchronization loop which is run whenever a new cpu is
> brought up is not actually needed on systems which are known to have a
> reliable TSC. TSC between 2 cpus can be off by a marginal value on such
> systems and thats okay for timekeeping, since we do check for tsc going
> back in read_tsc.
>
> Can this reasoning be included and synchronization skipped for all
> these systems with reliable aka trustworthy TSC's  ?

In general, no.  Not all hardware/hypervisors behave this way, even when the TSC 
is otherwise stable once synchronized.

-- Chris
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/