![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2006-11-10 at 10:29 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > But that's different. > > > > We're limping along in a semi-OK fashion with the TSC. But now Thomas is > > proposing that we effectively kill it off for all x86 because of hrtimers. > > I'm totally against that. I'm working on that. The general disable is indeed overkill. All I need to prevent is to switch over to highres/dyntick in case that there is no fallback (e.g. pm_timer) available. Else I end up in a circular dependency as the emulated tick depends on the monotonic clock. > > And afaict the reason for that is that we're using jiffies to determine if > > the TSC has gone bad, and that test is getting false positives. > > The i386 clocksource had always trouble with that. e.g. I have a box > where the TSC works perfectly fine on a 64bit kernel, but since the new i386 > clocksource code is in it always insists on disabling it shortly after boot. > My guess is that some of the checks in there are just broken and need > to be fixed. It's the unconditional mark_unstable call in ACPI C2 state. /me looks. tglx - 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: 2006-11-11 11:15 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||