![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:49:24 -0700 thockin@hockin.org wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 11:46:15PM -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 23:35:24 -0700 > > thockin@hockin.org wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Oct 27, 2006 at 09:06:12PM -0700, Andi Kleen wrote: > > > > > > > > > So far, has I can understand. Seems to me that my computer which have a > > > > > Pentium D (Dual Core) on VIA chipset, also have unsynchronized TSC and > > > > > with the patch of hrtimers on > > > > > > > > Intel systems (except for some large highend systems) have synchronized TSCs. > > > > > > Does Intel guarantee that, or is that just what we happen to see, so far. > > > > Matthias has a Xeon machine on which the TSCs are unsynced, and which are > > unsyncable - write_tsc() just doesn't do anything. See thread at > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/7/22/104 > > Nothing at all, or just the the low few bits are writeable? We don't know - the tsc sync code doesn't remeasure the errors after "correcting" them. - 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/ | |||||||||
| Last update: 2006-10-28 07:17 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||