xen-devel.lists.xenproject.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
To: "xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>
Cc: "Andrew Cooper" <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	"Wei Liu" <wl@xen.org>, "Roger Pau Monné" <roger.pau@citrix.com>
Subject: [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/time: avoid reading the platform timer in rendezvous functions
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 2021 11:55:10 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bdf9640d-3c70-461f-6680-9ce883c19719@suse.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <d929903c-0e7a-adb9-3317-b66782f13b36@suse.com>

Reading the platform timer isn't cheap, so we'd better avoid it when the
resulting value is of no interest to anyone.

The consumer of master_stime, obtained by
time_calibration_{std,tsc}_rendezvous() and propagated through
this_cpu(cpu_calibration), is local_time_calibration(). With
CONSTANT_TSC the latter function uses an early exit path, which doesn't
explicitly use the field. While this_cpu(cpu_calibration) (including the
master_stime field) gets propagated to this_cpu(cpu_time).stamp on that
path, both structures' fields get consumed only by the !CONSTANT_TSC
logic of the function.

Signed-off-by: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@suse.com>
---
v4: New.
---
I realize there's some risk associated with potential new uses of the
field down the road. What would people think about compiling time.c a
2nd time into a dummy object file, with a conditional enabled to force
assuming CONSTANT_TSC, and with that conditional used to suppress
presence of the field as well as all audited used of it (i.e. in
particular that large part of local_time_calibration())? Unexpected new
users of the field would then cause build time errors.

--- a/xen/arch/x86/time.c
+++ b/xen/arch/x86/time.c
@@ -52,6 +52,7 @@ unsigned long pit0_ticks;
 struct cpu_time_stamp {
     u64 local_tsc;
     s_time_t local_stime;
+    /* Next field unconditionally valid only when !CONSTANT_TSC. */
     s_time_t master_stime;
 };
 
@@ -1702,7 +1703,7 @@ static void time_calibration_tsc_rendezv
                  * iteration.
                  */
                 r->master_tsc_stamp = r->max_tsc_stamp;
-            else if ( i == 0 )
+            else if ( !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC) && i == 0 )
                 r->master_stime = read_platform_stime(NULL);
 
             atomic_inc(&r->semaphore);
@@ -1776,8 +1777,11 @@ static void time_calibration_std_rendezv
     {
         while ( atomic_read(&r->semaphore) != (total_cpus - 1) )
             cpu_relax();
-        r->master_stime = read_platform_stime(NULL);
-        smp_wmb(); /* write r->master_stime /then/ signal */
+        if ( !boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC) )
+        {
+            r->master_stime = read_platform_stime(NULL);
+            smp_wmb(); /* write r->master_stime /then/ signal */
+        }
         atomic_inc(&r->semaphore);
     }
     else



  parent reply	other threads:[~2021-04-01  9:55 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 14+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-01  9:53 [PATCH v4 0/3] x86/time: calibration rendezvous adjustments Jan Beulich
2021-04-01  9:54 ` [PATCH v4 1/3] x86/time: latch to-be-written TSC value early in rendezvous loop Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 15:44   ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-01  9:54 ` [PATCH v4 2/3] x86/time: yield to hyperthreads after updating TSC during rendezvous Jan Beulich
2021-04-20 15:59   ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-21  9:57     ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-01  9:55 ` Jan Beulich [this message]
2021-04-20 16:12   ` [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/time: avoid reading the platform timer in rendezvous functions Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-21 10:06     ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-29  9:32       ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-29 12:48       ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-29 12:53   ` Roger Pau Monné
2021-04-29 13:51     ` Jan Beulich
2021-04-15  9:54 ` Ping: [PATCH v4 0/3] x86/time: calibration rendezvous adjustments Jan Beulich

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=bdf9640d-3c70-461f-6680-9ce883c19719@suse.com \
    --to=jbeulich@suse.com \
    --cc=andrew.cooper3@citrix.com \
    --cc=roger.pau@citrix.com \
    --cc=wl@xen.org \
    --cc=xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org \
    --subject='Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] x86/time: avoid reading the platform timer in rendezvous functions' \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).