On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 10:29 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > But that's different.
> >
> > We're limping along in a semi-OK fashion with the TSC. But now Thomas is
> > proposing that we effectively kill it off for all x86 because of hrtimers.
>
> I'm totally against that.
I'm working on that. The general disable is indeed overkill. All I need
to prevent is to switch over to highres/dyntick in case that there is no
fallback (e.g. pm_timer) available. Else I end up in a circular
dependency as the emulated tick depends on the monotonic clock.
> > And afaict the reason for that is that we're using jiffies to determine if
> > the TSC has gone bad, and that test is getting false positives.
>
> The i386 clocksource had always trouble with that. e.g. I have a box
> where the TSC works perfectly fine on a 64bit kernel, but since the new i386
> clocksource code is in it always insists on disabling it shortly after boot.
> My guess is that some of the checks in there are just broken and need
> to be fixed.
It's the unconditional mark_unstable call in ACPI C2 state. /me looks.
tglx
-
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]
