Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > linux.kernel > #1580225 > unrolled thread

[PATCH v7 1/5] x86: add simple udelay calibration

Started byLu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
First post2017-02-14 03:30 +0100
Last post2017-02-15 03:40 +0100
Articles 3 — 2 participants

Back to article view | Back to linux.kernel

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.


Contents

  [PATCH v7 1/5] x86: add simple udelay calibration Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-14 03:30 +0100
    Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] x86: add simple udelay calibration Sergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com> - 2017-02-14 10:30 +0100
      Re: [PATCH v7 1/5] x86: add simple udelay calibration Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com> - 2017-02-15 03:40 +0100

#1580225 — [PATCH v7 1/5] x86: add simple udelay calibration

FromLu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-02-14 03:30 +0100
Subject[PATCH v7 1/5] x86: add simple udelay calibration
Message-ID<taB2p-3Rt-5@gated-at.bofh.it>
Add a simple udelay calibration in x86 architecture-specific
boot-time initializations. This will get a workable estimate
for loops_per_jiffy. Hence, udelay() could be used after this
initialization.

Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Cc: x86@kernel.org
Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
---
 arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
 1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)

diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
index 4cfba94..aab7faa 100644
--- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
+++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
@@ -835,6 +835,26 @@ dump_kernel_offset(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long v, void *p)
 	return 0;
 }
 
+static void __init simple_udelay_calibration(void)
+{
+	unsigned int tsc_khz, cpu_khz;
+	unsigned long lpj;
+
+	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC))
+		return;
+
+	cpu_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_cpu();
+	tsc_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_tsc();
+
+	tsc_khz = tsc_khz ? : cpu_khz;
+	if (!tsc_khz)
+		return;
+
+	lpj = tsc_khz * 1000;
+	do_div(lpj, HZ);
+	loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
+}
+
 /*
  * Determine if we were loaded by an EFI loader.  If so, then we have also been
  * passed the efi memmap, systab, etc., so we should use these data structures
@@ -983,6 +1003,8 @@ void __init setup_arch(char **cmdline_p)
 	 */
 	x86_configure_nx();
 
+	simple_udelay_calibration();
+
 	parse_early_param();
 
 #ifdef CONFIG_MEMORY_HOTPLUG
-- 
2.1.4

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]


#1580424

FromSergei Shtylyov <sergei.shtylyov@cogentembedded.com>
Date2017-02-14 10:30 +0100
Message-ID<taHAR-8nm-11@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1580225
Hello!

On 2/14/2017 5:27 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:

> Add a simple udelay calibration in x86 architecture-specific
> boot-time initializations. This will get a workable estimate
> for loops_per_jiffy. Hence, udelay() could be used after this
> initialization.
>
> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
> Cc: x86@kernel.org
> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
> ---
>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> index 4cfba94..aab7faa 100644
> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
> @@ -835,6 +835,26 @@ dump_kernel_offset(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long v, void *p)
>  	return 0;
>  }
>
> +static void __init simple_udelay_calibration(void)
> +{
> +	unsigned int tsc_khz, cpu_khz;
> +	unsigned long lpj;
> +
> +	if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC))
> +		return;
> +
> +	cpu_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_cpu();
> +	tsc_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_tsc();
> +
> +	tsc_khz = tsc_khz ? : cpu_khz;

    Why not:

	if (!tsc_khz)
		tsc_khz = cpu_khz;

    It's more clear IMHO.

> +	if (!tsc_khz)
> +		return;
> +
> +	lpj = tsc_khz * 1000;
> +	do_div(lpj, HZ);
> +	loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
> +}
> +
>  /*
>   * Determine if we were loaded by an EFI loader.  If so, then we have also been
>   * passed the efi memmap, systab, etc., so we should use these data structures
[...]

MBR, Sergei

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#1581018

FromLu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
Date2017-02-15 03:40 +0100
Message-ID<taXFE-1Hw-19@gated-at.bofh.it>
In reply to#1580424
Hi,

On 02/14/2017 05:23 PM, Sergei Shtylyov wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On 2/14/2017 5:27 AM, Lu Baolu wrote:
>
>> Add a simple udelay calibration in x86 architecture-specific
>> boot-time initializations. This will get a workable estimate
>> for loops_per_jiffy. Hence, udelay() could be used after this
>> initialization.
>>
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
>> Cc: x86@kernel.org
>> Signed-off-by: Lu Baolu <baolu.lu@linux.intel.com>
>> ---
>>  arch/x86/kernel/setup.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++++++
>>  1 file changed, 22 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>> index 4cfba94..aab7faa 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/setup.c
>> @@ -835,6 +835,26 @@ dump_kernel_offset(struct notifier_block *self, unsigned long v, void *p)
>>      return 0;
>>  }
>>
>> +static void __init simple_udelay_calibration(void)
>> +{
>> +    unsigned int tsc_khz, cpu_khz;
>> +    unsigned long lpj;
>> +
>> +    if (!boot_cpu_has(X86_FEATURE_TSC))
>> +        return;
>> +
>> +    cpu_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_cpu();
>> +    tsc_khz = x86_platform.calibrate_tsc();
>> +
>> +    tsc_khz = tsc_khz ? : cpu_khz;
>
>    Why not:
>
>     if (!tsc_khz)
>         tsc_khz = cpu_khz;
>
>    It's more clear IMHO.

Sure.

Best regards,
Lu Baolu

>
>> +    if (!tsc_khz)
>> +        return;
>> +
>> +    lpj = tsc_khz * 1000;
>> +    do_div(lpj, HZ);
>> +    loops_per_jiffy = lpj;
>> +}
>> +
>>  /*
>>   * Determine if we were loaded by an EFI loader.  If so, then we have also been
>>   * passed the efi memmap, systab, etc., so we should use these data structures
> [...]
>
> MBR, Sergei
>
>

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]


Back to top | Article view | linux.kernel


csiph-web