Messages in this thread |  | | | Subject | Re: Dual core Athlons and unsynced TSCs | | From | Zan Lynx <> | | Date | Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:52:44 -0700 | |
On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:04 -0800, David Lang wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
>
> > David Lang wrote:
> > Well, wait until there's AMD based dual core x86_64 laptops out there
> > (this email being written on a single core x86_64 one). I can already
> > see the faces of the unhappy future owners being told "use idle=poll"
> > when on battery and anyway going deaf by fan noise.
> >
> > (/me ducks and runs)
>
> I'm not saying it's the right answer, but it's one of two workarounds
> currently available.
>
> idle=poll causes increased power useage
>
> timer source change (mentioned earlier in this thread) limits timer
> precision
>
> neither of these are fixes, but by understanding the different costs
> people can choose the work around they want to use while waiting for a
> better fix.
A laptop user could also bind a process to a single CPU, and use the
scaling min/max values to lock CPU speed to a single value. The TSC may
still stop during HLT, but software must be handling that already.
Wouldn't that provide an accurate TSC?
--
Zan Lynx <zlynx@acm.org>
[unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] |  |