lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Nov]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] tsc: make calibration refinement more robust
Daniel,

On Fri, 2 Nov 2018, Daniel Vacek wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 1, 2018 at 4:34 PM, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> wrote:
> >> -#define MAX_RETRIES 5
> >> -#define SMI_TRESHOLD 50000
> >> +#define MAX_RETRIES 5
> >> +#define TSC_THRESHOLD (tsc_khz >> 5)
> >
> > This breaks pit_hpet_ptimer_calibrate_cpu() because at that point tsc_hkz is 0.
>
> That did not show up with my testing, sorry. I guess
> pit_calibrate_tsc() never failed for me. Hmm, actually it looks like
> quick_pit_calibrate() does the job for me so
> pit_hpet_ptimer_calibrate_cpu() is likely not even called.

Right. It's only called when quick calibration fails. Testing does not
replace code inspection :)

> Would this:
>
> #define TSC_THRESHOLD (tsc_khz? tsc_khz >> 5: 0x20000)
>
> work for you instead? Or alternatively at some point when chasing this
> down I used:
>
> #define TSC_THRESHOLD (0x10000 + (tsc_khz >> 6))
>
> The first one seems better though. I can send v2 next week if you like it.

Can you please avoid hiding the logic in a macro? Just use a local
variable:

u64 thresh = tsc_khz ? tsc_khz >> 5 : TSC_DEFAULT_THRESHOLD;

and use that in the comparison.

Thanks,

tglx



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-11-03 11:05    [W:0.092 / U:0.016 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site