On Tue, Feb 21, 2023 at 09:47:24AM +0100, Juergen Gross wrote:
> On 21.02.23 06:51, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 08:14:40PM -0800, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 20, 2023 at 11:01:18PM +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Feb 20 2023 at 09:17, Krister Johansen wrote:
> > > > > @@ -495,8 +496,7 @@ static int __init xen_tsc_safe_clocksource(void)
> > > > > /* Leaf 4, sub-leaf 0 (0x40000x03) */
> > > > > cpuid_count(xen_cpuid_base() + 3, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > > > > - /* tsc_mode = no_emulate (2) */
> > > > > - if (ebx != 2)
> > > > > + if (ebx != XEN_CPUID_TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE)
> > > > > return 0;
> > > > > return 1;
> > > >
> > > > What about removing more stupidity from that function?
> > > >
> > > > static bool __init xen_tsc_safe_clocksource(void)
> > > > {
> > > > u32 eax, ebx. ecx, edx;
> > > > /* Leaf 4, sub-leaf 0 (0x40000x03) */
> > > > cpuid_count(xen_cpuid_base() + 3, 0, &eax, &ebx, &ecx, &edx);
> > > >
> > > > return ebx == XEN_CPUID_TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE;
> > > > }
> > >
> > > I'm all for simplifying. I'm happy to clean up that return to be more
> > > idiomatic. I was under the impression, perhaps mistaken, though, that
> > > the X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC, X86_FEATURE_NONSTOP_TSC, and
> > > check_tsc_unstable() checks were actually serving a purpose: to ensure
> > > that we don't rely on the tsc in environments where it's being emulated
> > > and the OS would be better served by using a PV clock. Specifically,
> > > kvmclock_init() makes a very similar set of checks that I also thought
> > > were load-bearing.
> >
> > Bah, what I meant to say was emulated, unstable, or otherwise unsuitable
> > for use as a clocksource. IOW, even if TSC_MODE_NEVER_EMULATE is
> > set, it's possible that a user is attempting a migration from a cpu
> > that's not invariant, and we'd still want to check for that case and
> > fall back to a PV clocksource, correct?
>
> But Thomas' suggestion wasn't changing any behavior compared to your
> patch. It just makes it easier to read.
>
> If you are unsure your patch is correct, please verify the correctness
> before sending it.
Thanks, and apologies. I misunderstood and thought a more complex change
was requested.
-K
