Jung-uk Kim wrote: > On Friday 03 December 2010 01:14 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: > >> on 03/12/2010 20:05 Jung-uk Kim said the following: >> >>> On Friday 03 December 2010 12:26 pm, Andriy Gapon wrote: >>> >>>> FreeBSD uses cpu_ticks [function pointer] in a few places for a >>>> few things like process CPU time accounting. On x86 cpu_ticks >>>> always points to rdtsc. If TSC is not invariant that leads to >>>> incorrect accounting of "CPU ticks". The code pretends to try to >>>> handle changing cpufreq levels, but does that incorrectly. >>>> >>> Arg... Probably it is my fault. :-( >>> >>> >>>> I think that we could use a selected timecounter instead of >>>> "raw" TSC if the latter is not invariant. In this case >>>> cpu_ticks calls would be slightly costlier, but always correct. >>>> >>>> The change is quite trivial: >>>> http://people.freebsd.org/~avg/tsc-cputicker.diff >>>> >>>> What do you think? >>>> >>> Why don't we just fix it properly? >>> >> Patch? :-) >> > > Attached. > > >> It seems that it is not too trivial to do and is prone to error >> accumulation given how the ticks are added up. >> Besides, why using a timecounter would not be a proper fix? >> > > Well, it is not that simple, unfortunately. Because init_TSC() is > called very early, your patch will select dummy timecounter as a CPU > ticker if my memory serves. It is very hard to implement right on > x86 arch. :-( > > So many years, they can not make a simple counter work correctly, I have seen so many failed technologies in the tech world, and will still happen frequently. :-)Received on Sat Dec 04 2010 - 00:42:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:09 UTC