On Tue, 13 Jun 2017, Zhenzhong Duan wrote: > 在 2017/6/13 0:03, Thomas Gleixner 写道: > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Zhenzhong Duan wrote: > > > > > unsynchronized_tsc() checks value of tsc_clocksource_reliable which is set > > > by > > > check_system_tsc_reliable(). It's better to move > > > check_system_tsc_reliable() > > > at > > > front, or else this check makes no sense. > > > > > > Though X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC is usually set for TSC reliable system, > > > just > > > in > > > case. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Zhenzhong Duan <zhenzhong.d...@oracle.com> > > > --- > > > arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c > > > index 714dfba..a316bdd 100644 > > > --- a/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c > > > +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/tsc.c > > > @@ -1412,11 +1412,11 @@ void __init tsc_init(void) > > > use_tsc_delay(); > > > + check_system_tsc_reliable(); > > > + > > > if (unsynchronized_tsc()) > > > mark_tsc_unstable("TSCs unsynchronized"); > > > - check_system_tsc_reliable(); > > > - > > What kind of patch is that? Definitely nothing which can be applied. > To avoid using unassigned variable tsc_clocksource_reliable. > Or what's the purpose of if (tsc_clocksource_reliable) check in > unsynchronized_tsc()?
That's not the question. The patch format itself is broken: @@ -1412,11 +1412,11 @@ void __init tsc_init(void) use_tsc_delay(); + check_system_tsc_reliable(); + if (unsynchronized_tsc()) mark_tsc_unstable("TSCs unsynchronized"); - check_system_tsc_reliable(); - That is not a patch created with diff -u or any other mechanism which creates properly formatted patches. Thanks, tglx