Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.59_lost-tick_A0 | From | john stultz <> | Date | 21 Jan 2003 15:31:08 -0800 |
| |
On Tue, 2003-01-21 at 15:27, Andi Kleen wrote: > Comments: > > Basic idea is good. The x86-64 2.4 tree has a similar solution for the > same problem. Especially with HZ=1000 this is really needed, because > now lost ticks are far more common than with the HZ=100 in 2.4. > I would consider some form of this patch as requirement for 2.6 release. > > what happens when 1000000 does not evenly divide HZ? > I think some ports use HZ=1024
Then it comes out to close enough? I'm probably just not getting the problem. Could you further explain?
> Why is the condition > and not >= ? Eactly two ticks offset is already > one lost. In fact even >= 1.5*HZ would be dubious.
Exactly two, yes. However 1.5 wouldn't quite do it, as jiffies would be incremented once and delay_at_last_interrupt should be set to .5*HZ, thus loosing no time.
> I would like to have some statistics counter somewhere in /proc for lost > ticks, so that it can be checked for after bug reports. Perhaps even > printk for the first 5 or so.
Yea, I had some printk code in there, but I have a card here that can cause 30ms SMI stalls once per sec, so it was getting a bit verbose. Although printing out for the first five, would be fine. I'll add that right away. Thanks!
> Could you please add spaces after /* and before */
Doh, I read and read those style guidelines, but my fingers never seem to take to em'.
thanks again, -john
- 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/
| |