On Saturday 30 July 2005 12:10 pm, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> On Sat, 30 Jul 2005, Alex Williamson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 16:31 -0700, Christoph Lameter wrote:
> > > What you are dealing with is a machine that is using ITC as a time bases.
> > > That is a special case.
> >
> > The default time source for ia64 systems is a "special case"? 4
> > socket and smaller boxes typically do not have any other time source.
>
> It is a special case because we typically use other time sources.
Maybe you==SGI typically use other time sources, but most other
ia64 boxes have synchronized ITCs. There's no reason such machines
should have to use the slower and lower precision HPET.
> If it is really synchronized then you can run with "nojitter" without any
> issue. Then you wont have to deal with the cmpxchg and everything is fine.
> But I suspect that the ITC are NOT truly synchronized (it has an
> "offset" that may be nonzero right?) otherwise you would have used nojitter.
And why should everyday users have to be concerned with "nojitter"?
> Extra timer hardware is necessary to fix the ITC deficiency. You are at
> the source of the problem. Fix the damn hardware to provide a standardized
> synchronized clock or provide a truly synchronized ITC.
The "ITC deficiency" is a platform design issue. Most small SMP platforms
*do* synchronize the clocks of all processors. Obviously that's difficult
on large boxes, and then you may need extra timers in the platform.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |