lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2019]   [Jan]   [31]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] acpi_pm: Reduce PMTMR counter read contention
On Thu, 31 Jan 2019, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:

> On 2019/1/30 16:06, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Zhenzhong Duan wrote:
> >
> > > On a large system with many CPUs, using PMTMR as the clock source can
> > > have a significant impact on the overall system performance because
> > > of the following reasons:
> > > 1) There is a single PMTMR counter shared by all the CPUs.
> > > 2) PMTMR counter reading is a very slow operation.
> > >
> > > Using PMTMR as the default clock source may happen when, for example,
> > > the TSC clock calibration exceeds the allowable tolerance and HPET
> > > disabled by nohpet on kernel command line. Sometimes the performance
> >
> > The question is why would anyone disable HPET on a larger machine when the
> > TSC is wreckaged?
>
> There may be broken hardware where TSC is wreckaged.

I know that.

> > I'm not against the change per se, but I really want to understand why we
> > need all the complexity for something which should never be used in a real
> > world deployment.
>
> Hmm, it's a strong word of "never be used". Customers may happen to use
> nohpet(sanity test?) and report bug to us. Sometimes they does report a bug
> that reproduce with their customed config. There may also be BIOS setting HPET
> disabled.

And because the customer MAY do completely nonsensical things (and there
are a lot more than the HPET) the kernel has to handle all of them?

Thanks,

tglx

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2019-01-31 15:27    [W:0.101 / U:12.712 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site