Re: TSC Timecounter and multi-core/SMP

David O'Brien wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 10:54:53AM -0700, Julian Elischer wrote:
>> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:
>>> In message <48080276.3040203_at_elischer.org>, Julian Elischer writes:
>>>> You'd think that an invariant sync'd clock (fast to read) of some
>>>> type would have been done by someone by now.. The software people
>>>> have been asking for this for the last decade at least.
>>> Actually one of the original design documents for SAGE stressed that
>>> such hardware were crucially important "for any system operating
>>> in real time", so yes, the HW people have had adequate notices.
>>> Poul-Henning
>> I'm certain that earlier systems had it as a requirement but I wasn't
>> willing to lump the IBM 407 or 1620  in to the same bucket as an SMP
>> PC with the ability to change the frequency on each CPU. I remember
>> that the MP vaxen and PDPs had good timers.. and I'm certain the MP
>> IBMs did too.
> 
> You're also speaking of a world where the HW vendor controlled the OS and
> could change the OS at any time to match changes in the HW.  That has not
> been true of the x86 world for nearly three decades.
> 
> 
>> How hard can it be?
> 
> Quite hard - especially if you want it fast (on the order of say 10
> cycles like TSC is).
> 

no it can't be that hard.. other processors manage it. And it's
a critical feature.. kind of like atomic bus operations..
you can get around it, but it's really hard. SO it deserves
real effort.

> 
>> An instruction that gives a 64 bit counter, in some reasonable
>> granularity that is run at the same speed for all CPUS in a system
>> regardless of the speed each cpu is running..
> 
> AMD Greyhound (Family 10h) gives this (well, at 60'ish cycles).  What you
> didn't ask for here (but I think you did in another email) is for all the
> values to be the same.  That means off-chip signaling.  The HPET was
> one attempt at addressing this, but it centralized the counter and thus
> the reads of it are serialized and >100 cycles.
> 

no I don't need the values to be the same if the offset remains 
constant. that would just be a 'nice' feature.


> It is my understanding, some Sparc systems have the time source you are
> looking for.

my point exactly.. it is doable.

> 
> What you're really asking for is for wall-time to be split out of
> processor cycle counter (which is what TSC really is).  That OS's
> have been abusing TSC for a wall-time source is the fault.

they have no alternative because the HW manufacturers will not give us 
a suitable source.

> 
> x86 processor companies would like to make this change (TSC and clock
> time source), but is the ways heard "there way too much software written
> that uses X to change".
> 

who the heck told them that?
A new facility would start to get used in new software. (!?)

> 
>> While nsecs would be nice even usecs might do.
> 
> Nope, not really.  Every OS I know of that has tried to use the HPET or
> ACPI PMtimer instead of TSC cannot stand the latency and thus fights for
> ways to go back to the TSC.  [FreeBSD is mostly an exception, but the
> fact we're having this discussion... say we're not totally satisfied
> with ACPI PMtimer or HPET.]
> 

no they are too slow.. we want somethign that just reads an on chip 
register in one cycle.

> 
>> They don't even have to be in sync as long as the offset
>> between them is constant (though that would be nice).
> 
> This is what AMD's Greyhound (family 10h) *finally* gives [AMD users].
> I think Intel Core2 does too - but at a price of lower granularity.

that's fine.. I haven't seen the specs but that's great news.

> 
> 
>> hardware people don't seem to realise the importance
>> of this. and keep throwing it out to gain/save a pin or to save
>> some transistors for some other feature.
> 
> NO.  The HW people *DO* understand this.  It has nothing to do with
> saving a pin or some transistors.  Multi-core and 6GB cache is here
> today because we have an abundance of transistors.  AMD Opteron's now
> have 1207 pins.
> 

then why didn't we have this a decade ago?

> A large set of folks responsible for lack of change are SW folks who
> would need to change on a dime (and go back and change older SW too)
> that gets in the way.  Would we be willing to go change time sources
> for FreeBSD 6.4?  Would Microsoft for w2k3?  Or Red Hat for RHEL4?
> (HW vendors want to sell product, which means to customers using
> *released* software; not requiring a 5 year out OS to take advantage
> of it.)

If you have a new feature, there is nothing that says old sw
has to use it..

>