From: Peter Zijlstra Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 15:52:04 +0000 (+0200) Subject: x86/tsc: Remove the TSC_ADJUST clamp X-Git-Url: https://git.stricted.de/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=855615eee9b1989cac8ec5eaae4562db081a239b;p=GitHub%2Fmoto-9609%2Fandroid_kernel_motorola_exynos9610.git x86/tsc: Remove the TSC_ADJUST clamp Now that all affected platforms have a microcode update; and we check this and disable TSC_DEADLINE and print a microcode revision update error if its too old, we can remove the TSC_ADJUST clamp. This should help with systems where the second socket runs ahead of the first socket and needs a negative adjustment. In this case we'd hit the 0 clamp and give up for not achieving synchronization. Signed-off-by: Peter Zijlstra (Intel) Cc: kevin.b.stanton@intel.com Link: http://lkml.kernel.org/r/20170531155306.100950003@infradead.org Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner --- diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c index 728f75378475..7842371bc9e4 100644 --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc_sync.c @@ -71,13 +71,8 @@ static void tsc_sanitize_first_cpu(struct tsc_adjust *cur, s64 bootval, * non zero. We don't do that on non boot cpus because physical * hotplug should have set the ADJUST register to a value > 0 so * the TSC is in sync with the already running cpus. - * - * But we always force positive ADJUST values. Otherwise the TSC - * deadline timer creates an interrupt storm. We also have to - * prevent values > 0x7FFFFFFF as those wreckage the timer as well. */ - if ((bootcpu && bootval != 0) || (!bootcpu && bootval < 0) || - (bootval > 0x7FFFFFFF)) { + if (bootcpu && bootval != 0) { pr_warn(FW_BUG "TSC ADJUST: CPU%u: %lld force to 0\n", cpu, bootval); wrmsrl(MSR_IA32_TSC_ADJUST, 0); @@ -451,20 +446,6 @@ retry: */ cur->adjusted += cur_max_warp; - /* - * TSC deadline timer stops working or creates an interrupt storm - * with adjust values < 0 and > x07ffffff. - * - * To allow adjust values > 0x7FFFFFFF we need to disable the - * deadline timer and use the local APIC timer, but that requires - * more intrusive changes and we do not have any useful information - * from Intel about the underlying HW wreckage yet. - */ - if (cur->adjusted < 0) - cur->adjusted = 0; - if (cur->adjusted > 0x7FFFFFFF) - cur->adjusted = 0x7FFFFFFF; - pr_warn("TSC ADJUST compensate: CPU%u observed %lld warp. Adjust: %lld\n", cpu, cur_max_warp, cur->adjusted);