This is an archived copy of the Xen.org mailing list, which we have preserved to ensure that existing links to archives are not broken. The live archive, which contains the latest emails, can be found at http://lists.xen.org/
Home Products Support Community News


RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs u

To: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits
From: Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:34:18 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "winston.l.wang" <winston.l.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 07:35:01 -0700
Envelope-to: www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <C9CDA6D0.16614%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
List-help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=help>
List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
List-post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xensource.com>
List-subscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://lists.xensource.com/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>, <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xensource.com?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <7a5514b0-b3d6-478a-9434-b80758a7445d@default C9CDA6D0.16614%keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Friday, April 15, 2011 12:40 AM
> To: Dan Magenheimer; Jan Beulich
> Cc: winston.l.wang; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values
> on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits
> On 14/04/2011 23:41, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >> Yeah, if we want to continue to try avoiding write_tsc() on
> >> then we should assert !TSC_RELIABLE on the write_tsc() path in
> >> cstate_tsc_restore().
> >
> > Agreed.  In fact, maybe it should be asserted in write_tsc?
> We still write_tsc on CPU physical hot-add.

Hmmm... IIRC the testing that Intel was doing for hot-add was
not for processors that were actually electrically hot-plugged
but only for processors that were powered-on at the same
time as all other processors but left offline until needed
(e.g. for capacity-on-demand).  For this situation, writing
to tsc is still the wrong approach.  I don't think we finished
the discussion about electrically hot-plugged processors
because they didn't exist... don't know if they do yet either.
IIRC I had proposed an unnamed boot parameter that said
"this machine may add unsynchronized processors post-boot"
and disallow hot-add processors if not specified (or if
not specified AND a run-time check of a hot-add processor
shows non-synchronization).


Xen-devel mailing list

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>