From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from dpdk.org (dpdk.org [92.243.14.124]) by inbox.dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A51CA318B for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 06:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [92.243.14.124] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 054E91C07F; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 06:11:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from us-smtp-1.mimecast.com (us-smtp-2.mimecast.com [207.211.31.81]) by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1AF351C013 for ; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 06:11:12 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1571371871; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=PRNf4pEzWV1GNBvNj51UdsAFU4MzBjqa1DVavectCWs=; b=h0xXEKtyPGWGKTN6vGM/ToMb1Amr/B1+4MhVl0qluNb6W6yKww1qfeV9aYSrVjgptRQPlV R+SvVpjJBF15LybxESQhVK7F4BcAPgR8jQPNVM1m0HZO2ZH+lC3K2YaX3rHc0Xf5SFCPf8 RHKIAadedU7xwpqjo9hh32YBkMWd17M= Received: from mail-vs1-f69.google.com (mail-vs1-f69.google.com [209.85.217.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-5-pGmumE0BOpitYQY0SjNFdg-1; Fri, 18 Oct 2019 00:11:08 -0400 Received: by mail-vs1-f69.google.com with SMTP id y14so1108895vsj.11 for ; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:11:08 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=FjwDmH/lAb4hPUaDrQPWLGX5kBbxc5Lm/+MGxarA/gg=; b=oFXXzjw1A3e9Jfe7QtA+u540qPFiez2Ly577V7GkFkrbnEcuNaadnATanQlySy/xxd NSzDUWDfK/vCeaW2J61ZcP5wkXjkv28nz9XBN7iDDTc/YxM5/iqPFkxkz0KvFXuQBuh2 pPVSHDREWslcnGmobzJ4pxe/082AD7o/GOwQu2/wuatgXxoOrR1FhVvZAvkx1Bt1/wu+ zrJpcvltbwhcEk3TrS3xPnc7u/8eF/o5ZhSkmLe7IWDBp+co3mKRLMf37z2bkaCIWr4k PtIaM+KM5O6ARSxcGa+pf4i/vOkJ7dPpRi2hpCVj2hx9UhCFOFwEsyb4UrD+dNPbkU/1 fF0A== X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWw4sYKM7pP7Oqdm5P6pmPl5DVkxfnFKLqDI/4M5JMEVGvTh6ug XiKhCYXCu9rC8io+YjHyo/GGI3tAYfMZEi5l0YvPKwL7ayhTEvwY8k9fVWuS0DQ3iBy4kaPnE+6 lKaHCX5M6+jOEKq6irsY= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:304e:: with SMTP id x14mr4374362ual.41.1571371867717; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:11:07 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqxjLCelBqLMAFFFF9auFFT1e8X2tuTVYDbVCvC+IgamOzpQ3tIRtLKeHAmaJVFFSb5cjsTdUSg39N/zy8DtF3w= X-Received: by 2002:ab0:304e:: with SMTP id x14mr4374354ual.41.1571371867376; Thu, 17 Oct 2019 21:11:07 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <156638268505.9344.18339364696357608254.stgit@jrharri1-skx> <157046280565.10885.5236700707414855268.stgit@jrharri1-skx> <20191007161854.0d4bbad0@hermes.lan> <20191008083649.GA1856@bricha3-MOBL.ger.corp.intel.com> <20191008081547.2b002519@hermes.lan> In-Reply-To: <20191008081547.2b002519@hermes.lan> From: David Marchand Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2019 06:10:56 +0200 Message-ID: To: Stephen Hemminger Cc: Bruce Richardson , Jim Harris , dev , "Burakov, Anatoly" X-MC-Unique: pGmumE0BOpitYQY0SjNFdg-1 X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v2 RESEND] timer: remove check_tsc_flags() X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: DPDK patches and discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces@dpdk.org Sender: "dev" On Tue, Oct 8, 2019 at 5:16 PM Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 09:36:49 +0100 > Bruce Richardson wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 07, 2019 at 04:18:54PM -0700, Stephen Hemminger wrote: > > > On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 08:40:05 -0700 Jim Harris > > > wrote: > > > > > > > This code was added 7+ years ago: > > > > > > > > commit fb022b85bae4 ("timer: check TSC reliability") > > > > > > > > presumably when variant TSCs were still somewhat common? But this = code > > > > doesn't do anything except print a warning, and the warning doesn't > > > > give any kind of advice to the user, so let's just remove it. > > > > > > > > While the warning has no functional meaning, the /proc/cpuinfo pars= ing > > > > consumes a non-trivial amount of time which is especially noticeabl= e in > > > > secondary processes. On my test system, it consumes 21ms out of th= e > > > > 66ms total execution time for rte_eal_init() in a secondary process= . > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Jim Harris > > > Acked-by: Stephen Hemminger > > Acked-by: Bruce Richardson Applied, thanks. -- David Marchand