Re: [PATCH] scheduler: fix x86 regression in native_sched_clock

[Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de>]

On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:33:27 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> 
> * Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:
> 
> > On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:13:41 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > 
> > > * Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca> wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > >> ...
> > > >> thanks. I do get the impression that most of this can/should wait until 
> > > >> 2.6.25. The patches look quite dangerous.
> > > > ..
> > > >
> > > > I confess to not really trying hard to understand everything in this 
> > > > thread, but the implication seems to be that this bug might affect 
> > > > udelay() and possibly jiffies ?
> > > 
> > > no, it cannot affect jiffies. (jiffies was a red herring all along)
> > > 
> > > udelay() cannot be affected either - sched_clock() has no effect on 
> > > udelay(). _But_, when there are TSC problems then tsc based udelay() 
> > > suffers too so the phenomenons may _seem_ related.
> > 
> > What about msleep()? I suspect problems in b43 because of this issue. 
> > msleep() returning too early. Is that possible with this bug?
> 
> i cannot see how. You can verify msleep by running something like this:
> 
>   while :; do time usleep 111000; done
> 
> you should see a steady stream of:
> 
>  real    0m0.113s
>  real    0m0.113s
>  real    0m0.113s
> 
> (on an idle system). If it fluctuates, with occasional longer delays, 
> there's some timer problem present.

Does the sleeping and timing use different time references?
I mean, if it uses the same reference and that reference does fluctuate
you won't see it in the result.

But anyway, Stefano. Can you test this?

-- 
Greetings Michael.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/