On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:34:33 +0100
Stefano Brivio <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 00:04:25 +0100
> Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > * Ingo Molnar <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > * Andrew Morton <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > what do you think? Right now i've got them queued up for
> > > > > 2.6.25 in both the scheduler-devel and the x86-devel git
> > > > > trees - but can submit them for 2.6.24 if it's better if we
> > > > > did them there. I've got no strong opinion either way.
> > > >
> > > > printk_clock() doesn't seem terribly important but what's this
> > > > stuff about effects on udelay/mdelay? That can be serious if
> > > > they're getting shortened.
> > >
> > > since udelay depends on loops_per_jiffy, which is fixed up
> > > time_cpufreq_notifier(), i dont see how it could be affected by
> > > frequency changes. (but that's the theory - practice might be
> > > different)
> >
> > Stefano Brivio reported udelay()/mdelay() effects in the b43
> > driver. (and it caused driver failures for him.)
> >
> > Stefano, could you please try to sum up your experiences with that
> > issue? Is it reproducable, and the 5 patches i did fix it? (if yes,
> > could you try to re-do the mdelay verifications perhaps, to make
> > sure it's not some other effect interacting here. In theory
> > sched-clock scaling has no effect on udelay behavior.)
>
> Sorry for disappearing. Anyway, yes, those patches fixed it.
> Precision in delays isn't that good when using my crappy unstable TSC
> (mdelay(2000) causes delays between 2 and 2.9 seconds) but it's not
> depending on frequency changes anymore. So I'd say it's fixed, but
> please tell me if you want me to do any other test so as to be sure
> it is.
>
>
I'm still quite concerned about this in dual/quad core scenarios;
the frequency of both cores is the maximum of what linux sets each core to;
this means that if you're THIS sensitive to that there still is quite a nasty issue there.
I wonder if the various delay functions (maybe only in .25) should use the maximum observed loops_per_jiffie instead always (across cpus) to be super safe here.
--
If you want to reach me at my work email, use [email protected]
For development, discussion and tips for power savings,
visit http://www.lesswatts.org
--
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]
