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

On Monday 26 September 2005 22:33, Andrew Morton wrote:
> john stultz <[email protected]> wrote:
> > 	This patch should resolve the issue seen in bugme bug #5105, where it
> > is assumed that dualcore x86_64 systems have synced TSCs. This is not
> > the case, and alternate timesources should be used instead.
> >
> > For more details, see:
> > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5105
> >
> > Andi's earlier concerns that the TSCs should be synced on dualcore
> > systems have been resolved by confirmation from AMD folks that they can
> > be unsynced.
>
> OK, thanks - it's good to knock that one over.
>
> Andi, does this look OK for 2.6.14?

Yes.

-Andi

-
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/

---

• References:
  • [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs (resend)
    • From: john stultz <[email protected]>
  • Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs (resend)
    • From: Andrew Morton <[email protected]>

• Prev by Date: Re: [RFC PATCH] pci_ids.h: cleanup: whitespace and remove unused entries
• Next by Date: Repeatable crash under 2.6.13.2 + NFS
• Previous by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs (resend)
• Next by thread: Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs (resend)
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread

[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]