Re: [PATCH linux-next 2/2] x86/xen/time: cleanup xen_tsc_safe_clocksource

[Krister Johansen]

On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:01:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20 2023 at 09:17, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > @@ -495,8 +496,7 @@ static int __init xen_tsc_safe_clocksource(void)
> >  	/* Leaf 4, sub-leaf 0 (0x40000x03) */
> >  	cpuid_count(xen_cpuid_base() + 3, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> >  
> > -	/* tsc_mode = no_emulate (2) */
> > -	if (ebx != 2)
> > +	if (ebx != XEN_CPUID_TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE)
> >  		return 0;
> >  
> >  	return 1;
> 
> What about removing more stupidity from that function?
> 
> static bool __init xen_tsc_safe_clocksource(void)
> {
> 	u32 eax, ebx. ecx, edx;
>  
> 	/* Leaf 4, sub-leaf 0 (0x40000x03) */
> 	cpuid_count(xen_cpuid_base() + 3, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> 
> 	return ebx == XEN_CPUID_TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE;
> }

I'm all for simplifying.  I'm happy to clean up that return to be more
idiomatic.  I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, though, that
the X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC, and
check_tsc_unstable() checks were actually serving a purpose: to ensure
that we don't rely on the tsc in environments where it's being emulated
and the OS would be better served by using a PV clock.  Specifically,
kvmclock_init() makes a very similar set of checks that I also thought
were load-bearing.

-K