Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs (resend)

[john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>]

On Tue, 2005-09-27 at 00:15 +0200, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:

> Wouldn't it be a good idea to change the comment following
> the code you removed as well?
> 
> Why have a comment saying "multi socket systems" if there is no
> distinction anymore?
> 
> > 
> > diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> > --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> > +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> > @@ -959,9 +959,6 @@ static __init int unsynchronized_tsc(voi
> >   	   are handled in the OEM check above. */
> >   	if (boot_cpu_data.x86_vendor == X86_VENDOR_INTEL)
> >   		return 0;
> > - 	/* All in a single socket - should be synchronized */
> > - 	if (cpus_weight(cpu_core_map[0]) == num_online_cpus())
> > - 		return 0;
> >  #endif
> >   	/* Assume multi socket systems are not synchronized */
>        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >   	return num_online_cpus() > 1;

Yea, good point, that should probably be "SMP systems". 

Do you want to send the patch to Andrew? :)

thanks
-john

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/