On Thursday 01 February 2007 14:17, Jiri Bohac wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:14:23PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:59, [email protected] wrote:
> > > TSC is either synchronized by design or not reliable
> > > to be used for anything, let alone timekeeping.
> >
> > In my tree this is already done better by a patch from Ingo.
> > Check if they look synchronized and don't use TSC if they are not.
>
> The whole purpose of this patchset is to make use of TSC even if
> it's not synchronized.
It's still useful as a double check for platforms (like Intel single node)
which are supposed to be synchronized.
> Synchronizing it will not make anything better in any way -- the
> implementation just does not care whether TSCs are synchronized.
> That's why I think the synchronization code is not needed.
It doesn't actively synchronize it, just checks if they look synchronized.
-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/
[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]
