Skip to content

K
Kernel

openeuler / Kernel
接近 2 年 前同步成功

通知 8
Star 0
Fork 0
K
Kernel
切换分支/标签
  1. 21 6月, 2015 1 次提交
  3. 20 6月, 2015 1 次提交
  5. 24 4月, 2015 3 次提交
  7. 13 2月, 2015 1 次提交
  9. 16 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  11. 08 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  13. 06 5月, 2014 1 次提交
  15. 26 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  17. 20 3月, 2014 1 次提交
    • S
      x86, hpet: Fix CPU hotplug callback registration · 9014ad2a
      由 Srivatsa S. Bhat 提交于 
      Subsystems that want to register CPU hotplug callbacks, as well as perform
initialization for the CPUs that are already online, often do it as shown
below:

	get_online_cpus();

	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
		init_cpu(cpu);

	register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);

	put_online_cpus();

This is wrong, since it is prone to ABBA deadlocks involving the
cpu_add_remove_lock and the cpu_hotplug.lock (when running concurrently
with CPU hotplug operations).

Instead, the correct and race-free way of performing the callback
registration is:

	cpu_notifier_register_begin();

	for_each_online_cpu(cpu)
		init_cpu(cpu);

	/* Note the use of the double underscored version of the API */
	__register_cpu_notifier(&foobar_cpu_notifier);

	cpu_notifier_register_done();

Fix the hpet code in x86 by using this latter form of callback registration.

Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Signed-off-by: NSrivatsa S. Bhat <srivatsa.bhat@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Signed-off-by: NRafael J. Wysocki <rafael.j.wysocki@intel.com>
      9014ad2a
  19. 19 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  21. 05 3月, 2014 1 次提交
  23. 28 1月, 2013 1 次提交
  25. 03 11月, 2012 1 次提交
  27. 25 5月, 2012 1 次提交
  29. 07 5月, 2012 2 次提交
  31. 22 12月, 2011 1 次提交
    • K
      driver-core: remove sysdev.h usage. · edbaa603
      由 Kay Sievers 提交于 
      The sysdev.h file should not be needed by any in-kernel code, so remove
the .h file from these random files that seem to still want to include
it.

The sysdev code will be going away soon, so this include needs to be
removed no matter what.

Cc: Jiandong Zheng <jdzheng@broadcom.com>
Cc: Scott Branden <sbranden@broadcom.com>
Cc: Russell King <linux@arm.linux.org.uk>
Cc: Kukjin Kim <kgene.kim@samsung.com>
Cc: David Brown <davidb@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Daniel Walker <dwalker@fifo99.com>
Cc: Bryan Huntsman <bryanh@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Ben Dooks <ben-linux@fluff.org>
Cc: Wan ZongShun <mcuos.com@gmail.com>
Cc: Haavard Skinnemoen <hskinnemoen@gmail.com>
Cc: Hans-Christian Egtvedt <egtvedt@samfundet.no>
Cc: Guan Xuetao <gxt@mprc.pku.edu.cn>
Cc: "Venkatesh Pallipadi
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Grant Likely <grant.likely@secretlab.ca>
Cc: Richard Purdie <rpurdie@rpsys.net>
Cc: Matthew Garrett <mjg@redhat.com>
Signed-off-by: NKay Sievers <kay.sievers@vrfy.org>
      edbaa603
  33. 09 12月, 2011 1 次提交
  35. 05 12月, 2011 1 次提交
  37. 01 11月, 2011 1 次提交
    • P
      x86: Fix files explicitly requiring export.h for EXPORT_SYMBOL/THIS_MODULE · 69c60c88
      由 Paul Gortmaker 提交于 
      These files were implicitly getting EXPORT_SYMBOL via device.h
which was including module.h, but that will be fixed up shortly.

By fixing these now, we can avoid seeing things like:

arch/x86/kernel/rtc.c:29: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘EXPORT_SYMBOL’
arch/x86/kernel/pci-dma.c:20: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘EXPORT_SYMBOL’
arch/x86/kernel/e820.c:69: warning: type defaults to ‘int’ in declaration of ‘EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL’

[ with input from Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@xenotime.net> and also
  from Stephen Rothwell <sfr@canb.auug.org.au> ]
Signed-off-by: NPaul Gortmaker <paul.gortmaker@windriver.com>
      69c60c88
  39. 15 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  41. 14 7月, 2011 1 次提交
  43. 09 6月, 2011 2 次提交
  45. 06 6月, 2011 1 次提交
  47. 19 5月, 2011 1 次提交
  49. 12 3月, 2011 1 次提交
  51. 13 12月, 2010 1 次提交
    • T
      x86: HPET: Chose a paranoid safe value for the ETIME check · f1c18071
      由 Thomas Gleixner 提交于 
      commit 995bd3bb (x86: Hpet: Avoid the comparator readback penalty)
chose 8 HPET cycles as a safe value for the ETIME check, as we had the
confirmation that the posted write to the comparator register is
delayed by two HPET clock cycles on Intel chipsets which showed
readback problems.

After that patch hit mainline we got reports from machines with newer
AMD chipsets which seem to have an even longer delay. See
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1054283 and
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.kernel/1069458 for further
information.

Boris tried to come up with an ACPI based selection of the minimum
HPET cycles, but this failed on a couple of test machines. And of
course we did not get any useful information from the hardware folks.

For now our only option is to chose a paranoid high and safe value for
the minimum HPET cycles used by the ETIME check. Adjust the minimum ns
value for the HPET clockevent accordingly.
Reported-Bistected-and-Tested-by: NMarkus Trippelsdorf <markus@trippelsdorf.de>
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
LKML-Reference: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1012131222420.2653@localhost6.localdomain6>
Cc: Simon Kirby <sim@hostway.ca>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
Cc: Andreas Herrmann <Andreas.Herrmann3@amd.com>
Cc: John Stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
      f1c18071
  53. 27 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  55. 12 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  57. 01 10月, 2010 1 次提交
  59. 18 9月, 2010 1 次提交
    • T
      x86: Hpet: Avoid the comparator readback penalty · 995bd3bb
      由 Thomas Gleixner 提交于 
      Due to the overly intelligent design of HPETs, we need to workaround
the problem that the compare value which we write is already behind
the actual counter value at the point where the value hits the real
compare register. This happens for two reasons:

1) We read out the counter, add the delta and write the result to the
   compare register. When a NMI or SMI hits between the read out and
   the write then the counter can be ahead of the event already

2) The write to the compare register is delayed by up to two HPET
   cycles in certain chipsets.

We worked around this by reading back the compare register to make
sure that the written value has hit the hardware. For certain ICH9+
chipsets this can require two readouts, as the first one can return
the previous compare register value. That's bad performance wise for
the normal case where the event is far enough in the future.

As we already know that the write can be delayed by up to two cycles
we can avoid the read back of the compare register completely if we
make the decision whether the delta has elapsed already or not based
on the following calculation:

  cmp = event - actual_count;

If cmp is less than 8 HPET clock cycles, then we decide that the event
has happened already and return -ETIME. That covers the above #1 and
#2 problems which would cause a wait for HPET wraparound (~306
seconds).
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Tested-by: NNix <nix@esperi.org.uk>
Tested-by: NArtur Skawina <art.08.09@gmail.com>
Cc: Damien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr>
Tested-by: NJohn Drescher <drescherjm@gmail.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Tested-by: NBorislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
Cc: Suresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
LKML-Reference: <alpine.LFD.2.00.1009151500060.2416@localhost6.localdomain6>
      995bd3bb
  61. 15 9月, 2010 1 次提交
    • T
      x86: hpet: Work around hardware stupidity · 54ff7e59
      由 Thomas Gleixner 提交于 
      This more or less reverts commits 08be9796 (x86: Force HPET
readback_cmp for all ATI chipsets) and 30a564be (x86, hpet: Restrict
read back to affected ATI chipsets) to the status of commit 8da854cb
(x86, hpet: Erratum workaround for read after write of HPET
comparator).

The delta to commit 8da854cb is mostly comments and the change from
WARN_ONCE to printk_once as we know the call path of this function
already.

This needs really in depth explanation:

First of all the HPET design is a complete failure. Having a counter
compare register which generates an interrupt on matching values
forces the software to do at least one superfluous readback of the
counter register.

While it is nice in theory to program "absolute" time events it is
practically useless because the timer runs at some absurd frequency
which can never be matched to real world units. So we are forced to
calculate a relative delta and this forces a readout of the actual
counter value, adding the delta and programming the compare
register. When the delta is small enough we run into the danger that
we program a compare value which is already in the past. Due to the
compare for equal nature of HPET we need to read back the counter
value after writing the compare rehgister (btw. this is necessary for
absolute timeouts as well) to make sure that we did not miss the timer
event. We try to work around that by setting the minimum delta to a
value which is larger than the theoretical time which elapses between
the counter readout and the compare register write, but that's only
true in theory. A NMI or SMI which hits between the readout and the
write can easily push us beyond that limit. This would result in
waiting for the next HPET timer interrupt until the 32bit wraparound
of the counter happens which takes about 306 seconds.

So we designed the next event function to look like:

   match = read_cnt() + delta;
   write_compare_ref(match);
   return read_cnt() < match ? 0 : -ETIME;

At some point we got into trouble with certain ATI chipsets. Even the
above "safe" procedure failed. The reason was that the write to the
compare register was delayed probably for performance reasons. The
theory was that they wanted to avoid the synchronization of the write
with the HPET clock, which is understandable. So the write does not
hit the compare register directly instead it goes to some intermediate
register which is copied to the real compare register in sync with the
HPET clock. That opens another window for hitting the dreaded "wait
for a wraparound" problem.

To work around that "optimization" we added a read back of the compare
register which either enforced the update of the just written value or
just delayed the readout of the counter enough to avoid the issue. We
unfortunately never got any affirmative info from ATI/AMD about this.

One thing is sure, that we nuked the performance "optimization" that
way completely and I'm pretty sure that the result is worse than
before some HW folks came up with those.

Just for paranoia reasons I added a check whether the read back
compare register value was the same as the value we wrote right
before. That paranoia check triggered a couple of years after it was
added on an Intel ICH9 chipset. Venki added a workaround (commit
8da854cb) which was reading the compare register twice when the first
check failed. We considered this to be a penalty in general and
restricted the readback (thus the wasted CPU cycles) to the known to
be affected ATI chipsets.

This turned out to be a utterly wrong decision. 2.6.35 testers
experienced massive problems and finally one of them bisected it down
to commit 30a564be which spured some further investigation.

Finally we got confirmation that the write to the compare register can
be delayed by up to two HPET clock cycles which explains the problems
nicely. All we can do about this is to go back to Venki's initial
workaround in a slightly modified version.

Just for the record I need to say, that all of this could have been
avoided if hardware designers and of course the HPET committee would
have thought about the consequences for a split second. It's out of my
comprehension why designing a working timer is so hard. There are two
ways to achieve it:

 1) Use a counter wrap around aware compare_reg <= counter_reg
    implementation instead of the easy compare_reg == counter_reg

    Downsides:

	- It needs more silicon.

	- It needs a readout of the counter to apply a relative
	  timeout. This is necessary as the counter does not run in
	  any useful (and adjustable) frequency and there is no
	  guarantee that the counter which is used for timer events is
	  the same which is used for reading the actual time (and
	  therefor for calculating the delta)

    Upsides:

	- None

  2) Use a simple down counter for relative timer events

    Downsides:

	- Absolute timeouts are not possible, which is not a problem
	  at all in the context of an OS and the expected
	  max. latencies/jitter (also see Downsides of #1)

   Upsides:

	- It needs less or equal silicon.

	- It works ALWAYS

	- It is way faster than a compare register based solution (One
	  write versus one write plus at least one and up to four
	  reads)

I would not be so grumpy about all of this, if I would not have been
ignored for many years when pointing out these flaws to various
hardware folks. I really hate timers (at least those which seem to be
designed by janitors).

Though finally we got a reasonable explanation plus a solution and I
want to thank all the folks involved in chasing it down and providing
valuable input to this.
Bisected-by: NNix <nix@esperi.org.uk>
Reported-by: NArtur Skawina <art.08.09@gmail.com>
Reported-by: NDamien Wyart <damien.wyart@free.fr>
Reported-by: NJohn Drescher <drescherjm@gmail.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venki@google.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Cc: H. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Andreas Herrmann <andreas.herrmann3@amd.com>
Cc: Borislav Petkov <borislav.petkov@amd.com>
Cc: stable@kernel.org
Acked-by: NSuresh Siddha <suresh.b.siddha@intel.com>
Signed-off-by: NThomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
      54ff7e59
  63. 13 8月, 2010 1 次提交
  65. 27 7月, 2010 1 次提交
  67. 23 7月, 2010 1 次提交
  69. 29 4月, 2010 1 次提交
  71. 02 4月, 2010 1 次提交
    • A
      x86, hpet: Fix bug in RTC emulation · b4a5e8a1
      由 Alok Kataria 提交于 
      We think there exists a bug in the HPET code that emulates the RTC.

In the normal case, when the RTC frequency is set, the rtc driver tells
the hpet code about it here:

int hpet_set_periodic_freq(unsigned long freq)
{
        uint64_t clc;

        if (!is_hpet_enabled())
                return 0;

        if (freq <= DEFAULT_RTC_INT_FREQ)
                hpet_pie_limit = DEFAULT_RTC_INT_FREQ / freq;
        else {
                clc = (uint64_t) hpet_clockevent.mult * NSEC_PER_SEC;
                do_div(clc, freq);
                clc >>= hpet_clockevent.shift;
                hpet_pie_delta = (unsigned long) clc;
        }
        return 1;
}

If freq is set to 64Hz (DEFAULT_RTC_INT_FREQ) or lower, then
hpet_pie_limit (a static) is set to non-zero.  Then, on every one-shot
HPET interrupt, hpet_rtc_timer_reinit is called to compute the next
timeout.  Well, that function has this logic:

        if (!(hpet_rtc_flags & RTC_PIE) || hpet_pie_limit)
                delta = hpet_default_delta;
        else
                delta = hpet_pie_delta;

Since hpet_pie_limit is not 0, hpet_default_delta is used.  That
corresponds to 64Hz.

Now, if you set a different rtc frequency, you'll take the else path
through hpet_set_periodic_freq, but unfortunately no one resets
hpet_pie_limit back to 0.

Boom....now you are stuck with 64Hz RTC interrupts forever.

The patch below just resets the hpet_pie_limit value when requested freq
is greater than DEFAULT_RTC_INT_FREQ, which we think fixes this problem.
Signed-off-by: NAlok N Kataria <akataria@vmware.com>
LKML-Reference: <201003112200.o2BM0Hre012875@imap1.linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NDaniel Hecht <dhecht@vmware.com>
Cc: Venkatesh Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@gmail.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
Signed-off-by: NAndrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
Signed-off-by: NH. Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>
      b4a5e8a1