On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 04:44:30PM +0200, Daniel Lezcano wrote: > On 09/07/2024 10:53, Thomas Bogendoerfer wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 09, 2024 at 09:47:52AM +0800, Jiaxun Yang wrote: > > > > > > > > > 在2024年7月9日七月 上午12:36，Daniel Lezcano写道： > > > > On 11/05/2024 12:43, Aleksandar Rikalo wrote: > > > > > From: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > In a multi-cluster MIPS system we have multiple GICs - one in each > > > > > cluster - each of which has its own independent counter. The counters in > > > > > each GIC are not synchronised in any way, so they can drift relative to > > > > > one another through the lifetime of the system. This is problematic for > > > > > a clocksource which ought to be global. > > > > > > > > > > Avoid problems by always accessing cluster 0's counter, using > > > > > cross-cluster register access. This adds overhead so we only do so on > > > > > systems where we actually have CPUs present in multiple clusters. > > > > > For now, be extra conservative and don't use gic counter for vdso or > > > > > sched_clock in this case. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Paul Burton <paulburton@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Chao-ying Fu <cfu@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Dragan Mladjenovic <dragan.mladjenovic@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Aleksandar Rikalo <aleksandar.rikalo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > Applied patch 7 and 8 > > > > > > I think it won't compile without patch 1 being applid. > > > > > > Thomas, do you mind to apply patch 1 for now? Given that it's just some extra > > > function definitions. > > > > no problem, I've applied patch 1 und 2 to mips-next. > > Usually we create a shared immutable branch, but as we are close to the PR, > I propose I ack these two patches and let them go through the mips tree this > time works for me, as well. Thomas. -- Crap can work. Given enough thrust pigs will fly, but it's not necessarily a good idea. [ RFC1925, 2.3 ]
