[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits


  • To: Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • From: Keir Fraser <keir.xen@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 08:37:23 +0100
  • Cc: "xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "winston.l.wang" <winston.l.wang@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Delivery-date: Fri, 15 Apr 2011 00:39:30 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=user-agent:date:subject:from:to:cc:message-id:thread-topic :thread-index:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=azclFrQBCw5k5QIoSfeXlrPyWY77Kpb0lD3B9clt0QfgdxbxR35UYzFp3DrvwFSgUb BDwu5lyOYDqeX9FcG2hhz7UvCH+Nli6kqFzTXK4RDAndPXDiyQc0P3ckYOuyB+TL+YCA 4rLohdkyoBdrRxIBy1P6g36MI7d1Xush4K38g=
  • List-id: Xen developer discussion <xen-devel.lists.xensource.com>
  • Thread-index: Acv7P/V4gj5nQ7v48USfKIFRAPafkA==
  • Thread-topic: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits

On 15/04/2011 08:08, "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> But the write is actually tsc + 4*(s32)(tmp-tsc), and tmp has 1U<<32 ORed
>> into it (because it was read after your second write to the TSC. Perhaps we
>> should just write back the full original tsc and call that good enough?
> 
> Again, note the (s32) cast.

Oh yes. Still the 4x is weird, and on this path (!TSC_RELIABLE, TSC is fully
writable) we will sync all AP TSCs as they come up anyway. So writing back
the original TSC value is good enough, as far as this matters at all (which
it probably doesn't).

 -- Keir



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel


 


Rackspace

Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.