lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Dec]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
DateSat, 8 Dec 2007 16:33:27 +0100
FromIngo Molnar <>
SubjectRe: [PATCH] scheduler: fix x86 regression in native_sched_clock

* Michael Buesch <mb@bu3sch.de> wrote:

> On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:13:41 Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Mark Lord <lkml@rtr.ca> wrote:
> >
> > > Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > >> ...
> > >> thanks. I do get the impression that most of this can/should wait until
> > >> 2.6.25. The patches look quite dangerous.
> > > ..
> > >
> > > I confess to not really trying hard to understand everything in this
> > > thread, but the implication seems to be that this bug might affect
> > > udelay() and possibly jiffies ?
> >
> > no, it cannot affect jiffies. (jiffies was a red herring all along)
> >
> > udelay() cannot be affected either - sched_clock() has no effect on
> > udelay(). _But_, when there are TSC problems then tsc based udelay()
> > suffers too so the phenomenons may _seem_ related.
>
> What about msleep()? I suspect problems in b43 because of this issue.
> msleep() returning too early. Is that possible with this bug?

i cannot see how. You can verify msleep by running something like this:

while :; do time usleep 111000; done

you should see a steady stream of:

real 0m0.113s
real 0m0.113s
real 0m0.113s

(on an idle system). If it fluctuates, with occasional longer delays,
there's some timer problem present.

Ingo


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2007-12-08 16:37    [from the cache]
©2003-2010