Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 9 Apr 2019 18:19:57 -0700 | From | Ricardo Neri <> | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v2 12/14] x86/watchdog/hardlockup/hpet: Determine if HPET timer caused NMI |
| |
On Tue, Apr 09, 2019 at 01:28:17PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote: > On Wed, Feb 27, 2019 at 08:05:16AM -0800, Ricardo Neri wrote: > > @@ -62,7 +67,18 @@ static inline void set_comparator(struct hpet_hld_data *hdata, > > static void kick_timer(struct hpet_hld_data *hdata, bool force) > > { > > bool kick_needed = force || !(hdata->flags & HPET_DEV_PERI_CAP); > > - unsigned long new_compare, count; > > + unsigned long tsc_curr, tsc_delta, new_compare, count; > > + > > + /* Start obtaining the current TSC and HPET counts. */ > > + tsc_curr = rdtsc(); > > + > > + if (kick_needed) > > + count = get_count(); > > + > > + tsc_delta = (unsigned long)watchdog_thresh * (unsigned long)tsc_khz > > + * 1000L; > > + hdata->tsc_next = tsc_curr + tsc_delta; > > + hdata->tsc_next_error = tsc_delta >> 6; > > What do we need a per hld_data tsc_next_error for? It is basically a > global 'constant'. >
This is true. I thought I'd keep all the needed variables in a single struct to make the code more readable. I guess, I did not achieve that goal. I'll put it as a static global variable.
> > /* > > * Update the comparator in increments of watch_thresh seconds relative > > @@ -74,8 +90,6 @@ static void kick_timer(struct hpet_hld_data *hdata, bool force) > > */ > > > > if (kick_needed) { > > - count = get_count(); > > - > > new_compare = count + watchdog_thresh * hdata->ticks_per_second; > > > > set_comparator(hdata, new_compare); > > @@ -147,6 +161,14 @@ static void set_periodic(struct hpet_hld_data *hdata) > > */ > > static bool is_hpet_wdt_interrupt(struct hpet_hld_data *hdata) > > { > > + if (smp_processor_id() == hdata->handling_cpu) { > > + unsigned long tsc_curr; > > TSC is u64
In x86_64, isn't u64 an unsigned long? Do you mean to consider the 32-bit case?
> > > + > > + tsc_curr = rdtsc(); > > + if (abs(tsc_curr - hdata->tsc_next) < hdata->tsc_next_error) > > + return true; > > You can write that as: > > (tsc_curr - hdata->tsc_next) + tsc_error < 2*tsc_error > > which doesn't contain any branches what so ever. >
Sure, I'll add this change.
Thanks and BR, Ricardo
| |