[lkml]   [2005]   [Sep]   [3]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/3] Updated dynamic tick patches - Fix lost tick calculation in timer_pm.c
Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
>>With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
>>machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while
>>on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so
>>well (time sped up after 3 or 4 hours). Hence I consider this
>>particular patch will need more review/work.
> Are lost ticks really that common? If so, any idea what's disabling
> interrupts for so long (or if it's a hardware issue)? And if not, it
> seems like you'd need an artificial way to simulate lost ticks in order
> to test this stuff.

In my experience, turning off DMA for IDE disks is a pretty good way to
generate lost ticks :-)

Peter Williams

"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious."
-- Ambrose Bierce
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-09-03 06:21    [W:0.141 / U:35.168 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site