Re: [RFC 2/2] Make x86 calibrate_delay run in parallel.

[Ingo Molnar]

* Avi Kivity <avi@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 03/31/2011 11:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >>  I am not trying to be argumentative.  I never got an understanding of
> >>  what was going wrong with that earlier patch and am hoping for some
> >>  understanding now.
> >
> > Well, if calibrate_delay() calls run in parallel then different 
> > hyperthreads will impact each other.
> 
> It's different but not more wrong.  If delay() later runs on a thread whose 
> sibling is busy, it will in fact give more accurate results.

No, it's actively wrong: because it makes the delay loop *run faster* when 
other siblings

I.e. this shortens udelay(X)s potentially, which is far more dangerous than the 
current conservative approach of potentially *lengthening* them.

> > Really, there's no good reason why every CPU should be calibrated on a 
> > system running identical CPUs, right? Mixed-frequency systems are rather 
> > elusive on x86.
> 
> Good point.  And udelay() users are probably not sensitive to accuracy anyway 
> (which changes with load and thermal conditions).

True with one important distinction: they are only sensitive to one fact, that 
the delay should not be *shorter* than specified. By shortening udelay() we 
essentially overclock the hardware's tolerances - not good.

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/