On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 00:05 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
> > machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while
> > on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so
> > well (time sped up after 3 or 4 hours). Hence I consider this
> > particular patch will need more review/work.
> >
>
> Are lost ticks really that common? If so, any idea what's disabling
> interrupts for so long (or if it's a hardware issue)? And if not, it
> seems like you'd need an artificial way to simulate lost ticks in order
> to test this stuff.
Pavel came up with a pretty good test for this awhile back.
http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=110519095425851&w=2
Adding:
unsigned long mask = 0x1;
sched_setaffinity(0, sizeof(mask), &mask);
to the top helps it work on SMP systems.
thanks
-john
-
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]
| |
 |