[lkml]   [2011]   [Mar]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [RFC 2/2] Make x86 calibrate_delay run in parallel.

* Avi Kivity <> wrote:

> On 03/31/2011 11:57 AM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >>
> >> I am not trying to be argumentative. I never got an understanding of
> >> what was going wrong with that earlier patch and am hoping for some
> >> understanding now.
> >
> > Well, if calibrate_delay() calls run in parallel then different
> > hyperthreads will impact each other.
> It's different but not more wrong. If delay() later runs on a thread whose
> sibling is busy, it will in fact give more accurate results.

No, it's actively wrong: because it makes the delay loop *run faster* when
other siblings

I.e. this shortens udelay(X)s potentially, which is far more dangerous than the
current conservative approach of potentially *lengthening* them.

> > Really, there's no good reason why every CPU should be calibrated on a
> > system running identical CPUs, right? Mixed-frequency systems are rather
> > elusive on x86.
> Good point. And udelay() users are probably not sensitive to accuracy anyway
> (which changes with load and thermal conditions).

True with one important distinction: they are only sensitive to one fact, that
the delay should not be *shorter* than specified. By shortening udelay() we
essentially overclock the hardware's tolerances - not good.



 \ /
  Last update: 2011-03-31 12:49    [W:0.047 / U:3.708 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site