Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 18 Apr 2013 17:16:22 +0300
From:      Alexander Motin <mav@FreeBSD.org>
To:        Konstantin Belousov <kostikbel@gmail.com>
Cc:        "freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org" <freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org>, Jim Harris <jim.harris@gmail.com>
Subject:   Re: Synchronizing TSC
Message-ID:  <51700036.3000306@FreeBSD.org>
In-Reply-To: <20130417085052.GZ2930@kib.kiev.ua>
References:  <516DCAF7.20400@FreeBSD.org> <CAJP=Hc8fzwZBCp-9K8dHP1HrMh7r62FHm%2BSKWooBf_yUGS6mFQ@mail.gmail.com> <516E4537.7050205@FreeBSD.org> <20130417085052.GZ2930@kib.kiev.ua>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 17.04.2013 11:50, Konstantin Belousov wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 09:46:15AM +0300, Alexander Motin wrote:
>> On 17.04.2013 03:25, Jim Harris wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 3:04 PM, Alexander Motin <mav@freebsd.org
>>> <mailto:mav@freebsd.org>> wrote:
>>>
>>>      Hi.
>>>
>>>      Recently I've got 6-core/12-thread system on Sandy Bridge-E Core
>>>      i7-3930K CPU and was unpleasantly surprised to see that TSCs are not
>>>      synchronized there. While all 11 APs were synchronized, BSP was far
>>>      behind them. Since it is single-socket system, I don't know any good
>>>      reason for such behavior except some BIOS bug. But I've recalled
>>>      that somewhere was some discussions about possible TSC
>>>      synchronization. I've implemented patch below that allows to adjust
>>>      TSC values of BSPs to AP's one on boot using CPU MSRs, hoping that
>>>      they should not diverge after that:
>>>      http://people.freebsd.org/~__mav/tsc_adj2.patch
>>>      <http://people.freebsd.org/~mav/tsc_adj2.patch>;
>>>
>>>      I don't know very much about all different TSC hardware to predict
>>>      when it is safe to enable the functionality, but at least on my
>>>      system being enabled via loader tunable it seems working well.
>>>
>>>      Comments?
>>>
>>>
>>> You may be remembering this thread on r238755 last year:
>>>
>>> http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/svn-src-head/2012-July/038992.html
>>>
>>> This was a bug fix in the TSC synchronization test code though, not
>>> anything for trying to adjust out-of-sync TSCs.
>>
>> I remember that thread, but I think I've seen somebody told somewhere
>> that it could be interesting to implement some MI mechanism. Never mind.
>>
>>> The Intel SDM (volume 3, section 17.13 of March 2013 revision) says
>>> earlier models can only write to lower 32 bits of
>>> IA32_TIME_STAMP_COUNTER, but these models also should not have invariant
>>> TSC so they would never even get to your new routine.  So your patch
>>> seems OK for Intel CPUs, at least as a tunable that is disabled by default.
>>
>> Thanks.
>>
>>> My only concern would be why TSC on the BSP started out-of-sync on your
>>> system.  Theoretically, BIOS could adjust TSCs in SMM to try to hide SMI
>>> code execution from the OS, which could then make them out-of-sync
>>> again.  Not sure if that's what's happening here, but might be worth a
>>> test putting the TSC test code on a periodic timer to see if they ever
>>> get out of sync again.
>>
>> I did one more interesting observation: on every reboot drift between
>> BSP and APs is growing proportionally to the previous system power-on
>> time. On first boot it is -3878361036 (just above one second), after
>> reboot some minutes later it is -1123454492776 (about 6 minutes), after
>> another reboot it is -1853033521804 (about 10 minutes).
>>
>> Unless my adjustment code would be active, I would guess that AP's TSC
>> is running linearly while BSP's for some reason reset to zero on every
>> reboot. But since I am synchronizing them on each boot, the only
>> possibility for it I see is that there is some other timer(s) /
>> counter(s) not affected by MSR writes that ticks linearly and reloading
>> AP's TSC, but for some reason not reloading BSP's.
>
> For me it sounds as the BIOS bug, indeed. Could you verify the content
> of IA32_TSC_ADJUST on all cores (I believe it is present on E5) ?
> Also, using TSC_ADJUST to correct the skew seems to be preferrable,
> according to the Intel docs.

IA32_TSC_ADJUST register seems not present there. At least cpucontrol 
doesn't want to read it. In Intel docs I also see it mentioned only in 
context of future Haswell generation. And I don't see "Standard Extended 
Features" line in dmesg.

> Why do you use cpuid in the assembly sequence ? As I understand, you
> ensure that there is a serialization point, but why do you need it ?

The idea was to minimize time distance between following MSR read and 
write. But may be it is not needed, I am not exactly sure about that magic.

-- 
Alexander Motin



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?51700036.3000306>