[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH] x86: don't write_tsc() non-zero values on CPUs updating only the lower 32 bits
On 15/04/2011 15:34, "Dan Magenheimer" <dan.magenheimer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> Agreed. In fact, maybe it should be asserted in write_tsc? >> >> We still write_tsc on CPU physical hot-add. > > Hmmm... IIRC the testing that Intel was doing for hot-add was > not for processors that were actually electrically hot-plugged > but only for processors that were powered-on at the same > time as all other processors but left offline until needed > (e.g. for capacity-on-demand). For this situation, writing > to tsc is still the wrong approach. I don't think we finished > the discussion about electrically hot-plugged processors > because they didn't exist... don't know if they do yet either. > IIRC I had proposed an unnamed boot parameter that said > "this machine may add unsynchronized processors post-boot" > and disallow hot-add processors if not specified (or if > not specified AND a run-time check of a hot-add processor > shows non-synchronization). Well, I think the case I'm thinking of is electrical hot-plug. Not sure. Either way I doubt anyone is actually using the feature. -- Keir _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
|
Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our |