Re: powerpc64 head -r344018 stuck sleeping problems: th->th_scale * tc_delta(th) overflows unsigned 64 bits sometimes [patched failed]
Konstantin Belousov <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.os.freebsd.devel.ppc,gmane.os.freebsd.devel.hackers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Fri, Mar 01, 2019 at 02:11:33PM -0700, Ian Lepore wrote: > On Fri, 2019-03-01 at 20:57 +0000, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > > -------- > > In message <[email protected]>, Mark > > Millard via freebsd-hackers writes: > > > > > > I must admit that 2 seconds of interval where the timehands where > > > > not updated is too much. > > > > I have no idea how you got in that situation, but it is very far > > from how timecounters were designed to work. > > > > I wonder if it's fallout from reducing the number of timehands to 2, > which always struck me as a really bad idea. I know of at least one arm > configuration which fails because of it (it takes a combo of a single- > core system, and a pps capture driver that uses hardware latching of > the timer and the polling method for reading the latched value; given > all that, at least 4 sets of timehands are needed to avoid losing PPS > events due to generation changes). Using more than two timehands increases a chance of reader to try to use outdated timehands. In theory, on the hardware with very high inter-core propagation (e.g. with sufficiently large store buffers) it is possible for other CPU to use non-current timehands. More timehands you have, larger is the relative error. If you have very specific configuration which contradicts to the typical modern hardware configuration, I do not see a problem restoring some more timehands entries under a config option. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-ppc To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[email protected]"