| |
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
| |
|
|
xen-devel
RE: [Xen-devel] Time skew on HP DL785 (and possibly other boxes)
|
To: |
Keir Fraser <keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Dan Magenheimer <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx>, Ian Pratt <Ian.Pratt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Subject: |
RE: [Xen-devel] Time skew on HP DL785 (and possibly other boxes) |
|
From: |
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Date: |
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 21:37:30 +0800 |
|
Accept-language: |
en-US |
|
Acceptlanguage: |
en-US |
|
Cc: |
"john.v.morris@xxxxxx" <john.v.morris@xxxxxx>, "Xen-Devel \(E-mail\)" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Wei, Gang" <gang.wei@xxxxxxxxx> |
|
Delivery-date: |
Sun, 05 Apr 2009 06:38:08 -0700 |
|
Envelope-to: |
www-data@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
In-reply-to: |
<C5FE7064.6E87%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
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: |
<0A882F4D99BBF6449D58E61AAFD7EDD61024D381@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <C5FE7064.6E87%keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|
Sender: |
xen-devel-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |
|
Thread-index: |
Acm0q3HSSZiKszrATIOXS9rDQ0InwgBGJPUmAAiiyiAAAu+2dwAAE0jg |
|
Thread-topic: |
[Xen-devel] Time skew on HP DL785 (and possibly other boxes) |
>From: Keir Fraser [mailto:keir.fraser@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: 2009年4月5日 21:28
>
>On 05/04/2009 13:17, "Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>> One concern I have however, is Intel's
>>> X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC logic. This
>>> was added by them to prevent TSCs from diverging due to Cx
>deep sleep
>>> states, by observing that usually all TSCs will tick at the
>>> same exact rate,
>>
>> Here one correction is, that constant tsc logic is introduced for
>> P-states instead of C-states, to have TSC always stepping in
>> constant pace on a given processor, regardless of whatever
>> opertion point is being requested by cpufreq governor. It
>> doesn't say anything that all TSCs tick at same rate however.
>
>Then changeset 18923 is indeed broken and should be reverted?
>The problem is
>this changeset doesn't just affect the cases it is meant to
>'fix' (usage of
>C states for CPUs without no-stop TSC). Apart from the fact it
>can be broken
>for systems with that type of CPU as well, it's actually
>enabled for any
>modern CPU (anything advertising the constant-tsc feature). Probably I
>shouldn't have checked in that patch in the first place.
>
How about making it a selectable option, instead of reversing
it completely?
Thanks,.
Kevin _______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
|
|
| |
|
Home