On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 04:00:29PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:28 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:09:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:28 AM Marcelo Tosatti
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Oct 08,
On Thu, Oct 11, 2018 at 3:28 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2018 at 01:09:42PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:28 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 10:38:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:27
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 8:28 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 10:38:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:27 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > I read the comment three more times and even dug through the git
> > history. It seems like what you're
On Mon, Oct 08, 2018 at 10:38:22AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:27 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 03:28:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:29 PM Marcelo Tosatti
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 04,
On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 8:27 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 03:28:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:29 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > For better or for worse, I'm
On Sat, Oct 06, 2018 at 03:28:05PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:29 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
> > > I've come up with
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
> I've come up with this patch:
>
>
On Sat, Oct 6, 2018 at 1:29 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
> > I've come up with this patch:
> >
> >
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 03:15:32PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
> I've come up with this patch:
>
>
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Marcelo Tosatti writes:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:22:58AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >>
> >> There is a very long history of different (hardware) issues Marcelo was
> >> fighting with and the current code is the
For better or for worse, I'm trying to understand this code. So far,
I've come up with this patch:
https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/luto/linux.git/commit/?h=x86/vdso-tglx=14fd71e12b1c4492a06f368f75041f263e6862bf
Is it correct, or am I missing some subtlety?
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
> another slightly different copy of the same code.
>
> Especially the extended switch case is
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 12:31 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:00:45AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 2018, at 1:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>>>
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
I was hoping to hear this from you
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 07:00:45AM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Oct 4, 2018, at 1:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> >> I was hoping to hear this from you :-) If I am to suggest how we can
> >> move forward I'd
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:43 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 03:32:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
>> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:01 PM Marcelo Tosatti
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski
On Thu, Oct 4, 2018 at 9:43 AM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 03:32:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:01 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 03:32:08PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:01 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
> > >
> > > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner
> >
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 5:00 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> On 04/10/2018 09:54, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> - Check if pure TSC can be used on SkyLake+ systems (where TSC scaling
>> is supported).
>
> Not if you want to migrate to pre-Skylake systems.
>
>> - Check if non-masterclock mode is still
> On Oct 4, 2018, at 1:11 AM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>> I was hoping to hear this from you :-) If I am to suggest how we can
>> move forward I'd propose:
>> - Check if pure TSC can be used on SkyLake+ systems (where TSC
On 04/10/2018 09:54, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> - Check if pure TSC can be used on SkyLake+ systems (where TSC scaling
> is supported).
Not if you want to migrate to pre-Skylake systems.
> - Check if non-masterclock mode is still needed. E.g. HyperV's TSC page
> clocksource is a single page for
On Thu, Oct 04, 2018 at 09:54:45AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> I was hoping to hear this from you :-) If I am to suggest how we can
> move forward I'd propose:
> - Check if pure TSC can be used on SkyLake+ systems (where TSC scaling
> is supported).
> - Check if non-masterclock mode is still
Marcelo Tosatti writes:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:22:58AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> There is a very long history of different (hardware) issues Marcelo was
>> fighting with and the current code is the survived Frankenstein.
>
> Right, the code has to handle different TSC modes.
>
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 12:01 PM Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 11:22:58AM +0200, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
> > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>
> >> Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> >> implementation,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2018 at 04:00:29PM -0300, Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
> >
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > >
> > > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO
On Tue, Oct 02, 2018 at 10:15:49PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >
> > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> > implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 8:10 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > On Oct 3, 2018, at 5:01 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > > Not all Hyper-V hosts support reenlightenment notifications (and, if I'm
> > > not mistaken, you need to enable nesting for the VM
On Wed, 3 Oct 2018, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > On Oct 3, 2018, at 5:01 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
> > Not all Hyper-V hosts support reenlightenment notifications (and, if I'm
> > not mistaken, you need to enable nesting for the VM to get the feature -
> > and most VMs don't have this) so I think
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 5:01 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>>
>>> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>>>
Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
>>> The notification you're talking about exists, it is called
>>>
Andy Lutomirski writes:
>> On Oct 3, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>>
>> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>>
>>> Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
>>>
>> The notification you're talking about exists, it is called
>> Reenligntenment, see 0092e4346f49 "x86/kvm: Support Hyper-V
>>
> On Oct 3, 2018, at 2:22 AM, Vitaly Kuznetsov wrote:
>
> Andy Lutomirski writes:
>
>> Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>>
>>> Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
>>> implementation, which
Andy Lutomirski writes:
> Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
>
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>>
>> Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
>> implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
>> another slightly different
Hi Vitaly, Paolo, Radim, etc.,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 5:52 AM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
> another slightly different copy of the same code.
>
> Especially
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 3:00 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> > On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > A couple of architectures (s390, ia64, riscv, powerpc, arm64)
> > implement the vdso as assembler code at the moment, so they
> >
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> A couple of architectures (s390, ia64, riscv, powerpc, arm64)
> implement the vdso as assembler code at the moment, so they
> won't be as easy to consolidate (other than outright replacing all
>
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 2:52 PM Thomas Gleixner wrote:
>
> Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
> another slightly different copy of the same code.
>
> Especially the extended switch case is
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 03:05 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > > On 09/14/2018 02:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> > > > implementation,
On Fri, Sep 14, 2018 at 02:56:46PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 02:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> > implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
> > another slightly different copy of
On Fri, 14 Sep 2018, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 09/14/2018 02:50 PM, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
> > implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
> > another slightly different copy of the same code.
> >
>
Matt attempted to add CLOCK_TAI support to the VDSO clock_gettime()
implementation, which extended the clockid switch case and added yet
another slightly different copy of the same code.
Especially the extended switch case is problematic as the compiler tends to
generate a jump table which then
40 matches
Mail list logo
