Re: Dual core Athlons and unsynced TSCs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 

On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:04 -0800, David Lang wrote: 
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
> 
> > David Lang wrote:
> > Well, wait until there's AMD based dual core x86_64 laptops out there
> > (this email being written on a single core x86_64 one). I can already
> > see the faces of the unhappy future owners being told "use idle=poll"
> > when on battery and anyway going deaf by fan noise.
> >
> > (/me ducks and runs)
> 
> I'm not saying it's the right answer, but it's one of two workarounds 
> currently available.
> 
> idle=poll causes increased power useage
> 
> timer source change (mentioned earlier in this thread) limits timer 
> precision
> 
> neither of these are fixes, but by understanding the different costs 
> people can choose the work around they want to use while waiting for a 
> better fix.

A laptop user could also bind a process to a single CPU, and use the
scaling min/max values to lock CPU speed to a single value.  The TSC may
still stop during HLT, but software must be handling that already.

Wouldn't that provide an accurate TSC?
-- 
Zan Lynx <[email protected]>

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux