Date: Sat, 19 Feb 2022 19:26:24 -0500 From: Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org> To: Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com> Cc: Mike Karels <mike@karels.net>, Tomoaki AOKI <junchoon@dec.sakura.ne.jp>, "Chen, Alvin W" <Weike.Chen@dell.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: [Intel AlderLake] Read&Write files to FAT32 or UFS partition cause data corrupt due to P-Core&E-Core Message-ID: <59cbcfe2-cd53-69d8-65d6-7a79e656f494@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <YhE1rWoA%2BhMfebq/@kib.kiev.ua> References: <PH0PR19MB4938FC8E343F7AA23F66C7439E349@PH0PR19MB4938.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <PH0PR19MB4938BC329E905FA3BFC93EBB9E359@PH0PR19MB4938.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <PH0PR19MB49388A4BC14B16FCEA5F742D9E359@PH0PR19MB4938.namprd19.prod.outlook.com> <5fd2a34e-1135-4237-a028-d4566ff65c69@FreeBSD.org> <20220219115534.7db1b9f199c10894e4280b33@dec.sakura.ne.jp> <7A743668-B5AA-4679-9F56-9A6220CBBC14@karels.net> <bc01426a-9750-a161-0bfa-e1acd5299f81@FreeBSD.org> <YhE1rWoA%2BhMfebq/@kib.kiev.ua>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 19.02.2022 13:23, Konstantin Belousov wrote: > On Sat, Feb 19, 2022 at 12:14:16PM -0500, Alexander Motin wrote: >> On 19.02.2022 12:02, Mike Karels wrote: >>> On 18 Feb 2022, at 20:55, Tomoaki AOKI wrote: >>>> Just a thought, but can it be the reason with timing (e.g., rendezvous >>>> within (i)threads, hardware controlls without using hardware timer) >>>> problem? >>>> >>>> On FreeBSD, IIUC, multi processor (multi core) implementation assumes >>>> SMP (differs only clock speed) and end up with difference of >>>> performance at same clock speed within P-core and E-core, possibly. >>> >>> Another possibility is that the system is confused by having hyperthreading >>> on the P cores but not the E cores. >> >> No, I've tried to disable SMT and different number of cores to make it look >> identical and uniform for the scheduler. The only thing I could not test is >> disabling all P cores to test only E, the motherboard does not allow that, >> requiring at least one P core enabled. > > Does the kernel select MWAIT as the idle method? If you set idle to spin, > is anything change? By default kernel selects ACPI, using MWAIT: machdep.idle: acpi dev.cpu.0.cx_method: C1/mwait/hwc C2/mwait/hwc C3/mwait/hwc I've tried to do in loader: set machdep.idle_mwait=0 set machdep.idle="spin" (also tried "hlt") , but without visible positive effects. -- Alexander Motin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?59cbcfe2-cd53-69d8-65d6-7a79e656f494>