lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2011]   [Apr]   [18]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
Subject[RFT] Please test rdtsc on various x86-64 hardware (app included)
Hi all-

I'd appreciate some help testing rdtsc's ordering wrt memory on
various hardware. You can download evil-clock-test code at:

https://gitorious.org/linux-test-utils/linux-clock-tests/blobs/raw/master/evil-clock-test.cc

or pull from:

git://gitorious.org/linux-test-utils/linux-clock-tests.git

or see it online at:

https://gitorious.org/linux-test-utils/linux-clock-tests

No kernel patches required. If you have an old glibc then timing_test
will fail to build. You can ignore that problem, because I'm only
really interested in what evil-clock-test says.

On Sandy Bridge, you'll see something like:

$ ./evil-clock-test
CPU vendor : GenuineIntel
CPU model : Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2600 CPU @ 3.40GHz
CPU stepping : 7
TSC flags : tsc rdtscp constant_tsc nonstop_tsc
Using lfence_rdtsc because you have an Intel CPU
Will test the "lfence;rdtsc" clock.
Now test passed : margin 68 with 78370992 samples
Load3 test passed: margin 71 with 12740250 samples
Load test passed : margin 60 with 17743461 samples
Store test failed as expected: worst error 3316 with 14666029 samples

I've tested on Sandy Bridge, Allendale (i.e. Pentium Dual-Core),
Bloomfield. and C2D. I don't have any AMD machines with usable tscs,
and I haven't tested on systems with multiple packages. (If you're
feeling adventurous, you can play with the -p option. If you give it
two cpu numbers, comma-separated, which live on different packages,
maybe you'll learn something interesting. It might also be
interesting to try evil-clock-test -3 -p a,b,c where c is on a
different package from a and b.

(Oddly enough, the test *passes* on my C2D box, even though the kernel
thinks that my TSC halts in idle. This is with a fair amount of time
spent in C6 and even after a suspend/resume cycle. I'm not sure
what's going on there.)

For those of you who really care about this stuff, the 'store test'
will *fail* on most Intel systems. IMO that's OK, since fixing it
would slow everything down and since I don't think it deserves to
pass, even though it looks like the tsc is warping.

--Andy


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2011-04-18 21:35    [W:0.070 / U:8.868 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site