From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG  Tue May 31 20:16:41 2011
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (freefall.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::28])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B9371065672;
	Tue, 31 May 2011 20:16:40 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from jkim@FreeBSD.org)
From: Jung-uk Kim <jkim@FreeBSD.org>
To: Andriy Gapon <avg@freebsd.org>
Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 16:16:26 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.6.2
References: <201105241356.45543.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
	<4DE4CE82.4030301@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <4DE4CE82.4030301@FreeBSD.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201105311616.31256.jkim@FreeBSD.org>
Cc: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: [RFC] Enabling invariant TSC timecounter on SMP
X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD
	<freebsd-hackers.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-hackers>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-hackers>,
	<mailto:freebsd-hackers-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 20:16:41 -0000

On Tuesday 31 May 2011 07:18 am, Andriy Gapon wrote:
> on 24/05/2011 20:56 Jung-uk Kim said the following:
> > I think it's about time to enable invariant TSC timecounter on
> > SMP by default.  Please see the attached patch.  It is also
> > available from here:
> >
> > http://people.freebsd.org/~jkim/tsc_smp_test4.diff
> >
> > avg convinced me enough that it should be an opt-out feature
> > going forward. :-)
>
> Not sure if I really did that.
> My position is this:
> - if we think that TSC is SMP-safe then it should have the best
> priority
> - we should do our best to auto-guess if TSC is SMP-safe 
> unless a user explicitly overrides that property (either via
> explicit testing or by making guesses based on CPU model or etc)

I am sorry if I misunderstood your intention.  However, I added 
explicit boot-time TSC sanity check (to do our best to auto-guess) 
and I think TSC is fairly SMP-safe.  Hence, I thought that it is 
about time for the change.

> > Comments?
>
> Perhaps I missed it, but I don't remember the "lowres" part of the
> patch being discussed.

No, it wasn't discussed with you.  Do you see any problem with that 
code?

Thanks,

Jung-uk Kim