lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Mar]   [22]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: don't compile vsmp_64 for 32bit

* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:44:30AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> >* Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@scalex86.org> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> True, but by how much? 212 bytes, out of 7285943 bytes which
> >> is very very small percentage wise.
> >
> >How does this eliminate the validity of the patch?
> >
>
> It costs 212 bytes to leave is_vsmp_box() to not just be a dummy
> no-op. Having is_vsmp_box() detect if the hardware is indeed vSMP,
> is meaningful even when CONFIG_VSMP is not turned on. This is
> because is_vsmp_box() is used to tell the kernel, that although
> the cpus being used are supposed to have TSCs in sync, they are
> not really in sync. This is because you cannot ensure TSCs won't
> drift between multiple boards being aggregated on vSMP systems.
> Take the case of distro kernels. Distro kernels typically do not
> have CONFIG_X86_VSMP on. Due to the large internode cacheline
> setting, CONFIG_VSMP would not be on on the generic distro
> installer kernels. If is_vsmp_box() is a no-op, the generic distro
> installer kernels will assume TSCs to be synched, which is bad.
> Hence, it will be nice if, for the cost of 212 bytes, vsmp64.o be
> compiled either unconditionally, OR conditionally for 64bit
> architectures only. The question is, is 212 bytes out of 7285943
> bytes too expensive for the generic kernels? I hope not.

Sorry - got distracted and forgot about this thread. The TSC quirk
indeed looks required for your systems - you dont have a reliable
TSC due to virtualization, right?

Mind sending a patch (partial revert or so) against latest -tip that
fixes that?

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-03-22 13:51    [W:0.079 / U:0.008 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site