![]() | ||||||||||
Messages in this thread |
On Fri, 2006-07-07 at 16:39 -0700, john stultz wrote: > Yep. This has been seen where a large number of ticks are lost. Roman > and I are working on a solution for this (I sent a patch out to the > list > earlier today for it, and Roman *just* posted his version a moment ago > - > if you can give one or both of them a try it would be appreciated). Well, the patch you posted here: Message-ID: 1152298515.5330.12.camel () localhost ! localdomain Seems to work fine, thanks. I'm not sure what I'm looking for for the other one. > Did you really mean jumps of 200 seconds? Hmmm. The issue Roman and I > have been looking into does occur when we lose a number of ticks and > that confuses the clocksource adjustment code. The fix we're working > on > corrects the adjustment confusion, but doesn't fix the lost ticks. > > However 200 seconds of lost ticks sounds very off. Could the driver be > disabling interrupt for such a long period of time? Well, what I was seeing was that clocksource_read(clock) - clock->cycle_last is returning a value about 200 x clock->cycle_interval According to the debugging printks I put into update_wall_time(). I was assuming this was caused by a jump in the TSC count, but I suppose it could also be cause by spurious alterations to cycle_last or other effects I haven't traced. James - 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: 2006-07-08 04:39 [from the cache] ©2003-2008 | ||||||||||