Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Oct 2017 13:17:12 +0200 (CEST) | From | Thomas Gleixner <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 2/5] x86/kernel: Skip TSC test and error messages if already unstable |
| |
On Thu, 5 Oct 2017, mike.travis@hpe.com wrote:
> If the TSC has already been determined to be unstable, then checking > TSC ADJUST values is a waste of time and generates unnecessary error > messages. > > Signed-off-by: Mike Travis <mike.travis@hpe.com> > Reviewed-by: Dimitri Sivanich <dimitri.sivanich@hpe.com> > Reviewed-by: Russ Anderson <russ.anderson@hpe.com> > Reviewed-by: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org> > --- > arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c | 8 ++++++++ > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+) > > --- linux.orig/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c > +++ linux/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c > @@ -38,6 +38,10 @@ void tsc_verify_tsc_adjust(bool resume) > if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST)) > return; > > + /* Skip unnecessary error messages if TSC already unstable */ > + if (check_tsc_unstable()) > + return; > + > /* Rate limit the MSR check */ > if (!resume && time_before(jiffies, adj->nextcheck)) > return; > @@ -89,6 +93,10 @@ bool tsc_store_and_check_tsc_adjust(bool > if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC_ADJUST)) > return false; > > + /* Skip unnecessary error messages if TSC already unstable */ > + if (check_tsc_unstable()) > + return false; > + > rdmsrl(MSR_IA32_TSC_ADJUST, bootval); > cur->bootval = bootval; > cur->adjusted = bootval;
This hunk rejects and I really can't figure out against which tree that would apply.
Btw, there are two incarnations of tsc_store_and_check_tsc_adjust(). Shouldn't the !SMP variant get the same treatment?
Thanks,
tglx
| |