On Saturday 04 February 2006 19:03, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 21:10 -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote:
> > I know this has been gone over before, and I am aware of the possible
> > fix being the use of the pmtmr.
> >
> > My question is, if there is support builtin to the kernel for more than
> > one timer, and we know that no timer but the pmtimer is reliable on a
> > dual core system, why doesn't the startup of the kernel choose the
> > pmtimer based on if it detects the system is a dual core proc with smp
> > enabled? And if the pmtimer doesn't fix this sync issue, is there a
> > fix out there? Currently with 2.6.16-rc1-mm5 the non-customized boot
> > args to the kernel results in these messages.
>
> Excellent question. What's the status of this bug? It's a showstopper
> for a ton of people on the JACK list...
As Andi has recounted many times already, pmtmr is now the default on x86-64
if it's built in. I'm sure you can confirm this from the sources.
[alistair] 19:52 [~] uname -a
Linux damocles 2.6.15.1 #5 SMP PREEMPT Wed Feb 1 09:43:23 GMT 2006 x86_64
x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
[alistair] 19:52 [~] dmesg | egrep -e time.c.*PM
time.c: Using 3.579545 MHz PM timer.
time.c: Using PM based timekeeping.
--
Cheers,
Alistair.
'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.'
Third year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
-
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]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
