lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2007]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: 2.6.20-rc6-mm3
From
Date
On Wed, 2007-02-07 at 00:14 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * Daniel Walker <dwalker@mvista.com> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 23:56 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > > changing the current 'timer' entry (which is line 2 of /proc/interrupts)
> > > to be 'listed as lapic-timer' and to 'replace it with the count from
> > > LOC' is faking a count in a line where nothing like that should be.
> >
> > This point is getting irrelevant ..
>
> it is very much relevant: faking a count is something we /dont/ want to
> do with /proc/interrupts, for (very) basic compatibility, simplicity and
> policy reasons. And that is precisely what your suggestion was to
> 'solve' this supposed 'problem' - so it's very much relevant.

As I said you are misunderstanding me .. which is why this is not
relevant any more ..

Please move on .

> > > the kernel simply displays reality: IRQ#0 isnt increasing because
> > > it's not used, and LOC (local apic timers) is increasing.
> >
> > What about the statistics for the other interrupts in the system ? It
> > clearly doesn't list all interrupts in the system .
>
> what is your point?

Isn't the listing inconsistent ? /proc/interrupts only showing some
special interrupts, and not others .. For example it shows NMI which is
not related to request_irq() .. It shows some clock driver devices
(timer, NMI, LOC) and not others (clock event devices) ..

Daniel

-
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: 2007-02-07 00:25    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans