![]() | |||||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On 30 Jul 2006 22:10:05 +0200 Andi Kleen <ak@muc.de> wrote: > > I guess Matthias didn't test this patch. Can we get some obviously-correct > > fix in place for 2.6.18? > > So far we don't have any idea what the problem is on that system. I believe we do know what the problem is: a) write_tsc() doesn't work, b) the TSC's are unsynced (or have an offset), c) we removed a check which would have caused pmtmr/rtc fallback. > > It is a "CPU0: Intel(R) Xeon(TM) CPU 3.00GHz stepping 03". > > Was that on that system? yes. > I guess it could be checked for and TSC > be forced off. There's no need for that, I think. synchronize_tsc_bp() knows for-sure that the synchronization failed, in a way which works on all CPUs. So all we need to do is to set some flag in synchronize_tsc_bp() if `buggy' is set, telling the clocksource code to give up on the TSC. > It sounds like a real CPU bug however. I was hoping the Intel guys could help out with that. - 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: 2006-07-30 23:01 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | |||||||||||||