On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:02:09PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > He can give details on the test.
> >
> > I suspect the reason was because the CPU reordered the RDTSCs so that
> > a later RDTSC could return a value before an earlier one. This can
> > happen because gettimeofday() is so fast that a tight loop calling it can
> > fit more than one iteration into the CPU's reordering window.
>
> The K8's still guarantee that subsequent RDTSCs return increasing
> values, even if the processor reorders them.
Ah didn't realize this
>
> What could have been happening then was that the RDTSC instruction might
> have been reordered by the CPU out of the seqlock, causing trouble in
> the calculation.
Ok anyways it fixed that problem. So it cannot be taken out.
>
> Anyway, adding the CPUID didn't solve all the problems we've seen back
> then, and so far none of the approaches for using TSC without acquiring
> a spinlock on multi-socket AMD boxes worked 100% correctly.
The code is not used on multi-core anyways currently (without Jiri's
patch). It should just work correctly on single core.
-Andi
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
