Hi, Lu
At 07/13/2017 09:17 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:
Hi,
On 07/12/2017 04:02 PM, Dou Liyang wrote:
Hi, Lu
At 05/05/2017 08:50 PM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 05/05/2017 01:41 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:
Hi,
On 05/03/2017 06:38 AM, Boris Ostrovsky wrote:
On 03/21/2017 04:01 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:
Add a simple udelay calibration in x86 architecture-specific
boot-time initializations. This will get a workable estimate
for loops_per_jiffy. Hence, udelay() could be used after this
initialization.
This breaks Xen PV guests since at this point, and until
x86_init.paging.pagetable_init() which is when pvclock_vcpu_time_info is
mapped, they cannot access pvclock.
Is it reasonable to do this before tsc_init() is called? (The failure
has nothing to do with tsc_init(), really --- it's just that it is
called late enough that Xen PV guests get properly initialized.) If it
is, would it be possible to move simple_udelay_calibration() after
x86_init.paging.pagetable_init()?
This is currently only used for bare metal. How about by-pass it
for Xen PV guests?
It is fixed this for Xen PV guests now (in the sense that we don't crash
anymore) but my question is still whether this is not too early. Besides
tsc_init() (which might not be important here), at the time when
simple_udelay_calibration() is invoked we haven't yet called:
* kvmclock_init(), which sets calibration routines for KVM
* init_hypervisor_platform(), which sets calibration routines for vmware
and Xen HVM
* x86_init.paging.pagetable_init(), which sets calibration routines for
Xen PV
I guess these may have been missed.
Do you have any comments about these?
The patch will be available in 4.13-rc1.
Yes, I have seen it in the upstream.
Firstly, I also met this problem want to call udelay() earlier than
*loops_per_jiffy* setup like you[1]. So I am very interesting in this
patch. ;)
I am also confused about the questions which Boris asked:
whether do the CPU and TSC calibration too early just for using
udelay()?
this design broke our interface of x86_paltform.calibrate_cpu/tsc.
And I also have a question below.
[...]
+static void __init simple_udelay_calibration(void)
+{
+ unsigned int tsc_khz, cpu_khz;
+ unsigned long lpj;
+
+ if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC))
+ return;
if we don't have the TSC feature in booting CPU and
it returns here, can we use udelay() correctly like before?
[1] https://lkml.org/lkml/2017/7/3/276
Thanks,
dou.
Thanks,
dou.
+
+ cpu_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_cpu();
+ tsc_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_tsc();
+
+ tsc_khz = tsc_khz ? : cpu_khz;
+ if (!tsc_khz)
+ return;
+
+ lpj = tsc_khz * 1000;
+ do_div(lpj, HZ);
+ loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
+}
+
/*
* Determine if we were loaded by an EFI loader. If so, then we have also been
* passed the efi memmap, systab, etc., so we should use these data structures
@@ -985,6 +1005,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
*/
x86_configure_nx();
+ simple_udelay_calibration();
+
parse_early_param();
#ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-usb" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
