On Wed, Mar 03, 2021 at 10:51:31PM +0800, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02 2021 at 10:52, Feng Tang wrote:
> > There are cases that tsc clocksource are wrongly judged as unstable by
> > clocksource watchdogs like hpet, acpi_pm or 'refined-jiffies'. While
> > there is hardly a general
On Tue, Mar 02 2021 at 10:52, Feng Tang wrote:
> There are cases that tsc clocksource are wrongly judged as unstable by
> clocksource watchdogs like hpet, acpi_pm or 'refined-jiffies'. While
> there is hardly a general reliable way to check the validity of a
> watchdog, and to protect the innocent
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 10:14:01AM +0100, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 10:52:52AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> > @@ -1193,6 +1193,17 @@ static void __init check_system_tsc_reliable(void)
> > #endif
> > if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE))
> >
On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 10:52:52AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> @@ -1193,6 +1193,17 @@ static void __init check_system_tsc_reliable(void)
> #endif
> if (boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_RELIABLE))
> tsc_clocksource_reliable = 1;
> +
> + /*
> + * Ideally the socket number
There are cases that tsc clocksource are wrongly judged as unstable by
clocksource watchdogs like hpet, acpi_pm or 'refined-jiffies'. While
there is hardly a general reliable way to check the validity of a
watchdog, and to protect the innocent tsc, Thomas Gleixner proposed [1]:
"I'm inclined to
5 matches
Mail list logo