lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    SubjectRe: 2.6.1 "clock preempt"?
    From
    Date
    On Fri, 2004-01-23 at 11:36, timothy parkinson wrote:
    > On Fri, Jan 23, 2004 at 11:17:29AM -0800, john stultz wrote:
    > > Well, lost ticks can be caused by many things, but your point is valid,
    > > the message could be a bit more elightening.
    >
    > googling for this issue turns up quite a few questions about it - there's
    > already one possible answer in the source, couldn't hurt to stick in a few
    > more:
    >
    >
    > if (lost_count++ > 100) {
    > printk(KERN_WARNING "Losing too many ticks!\n");
    > printk(KERN_WARNING "TSC cannot be used as a timesource.\n"
    > "Are you running with SpeedStep?\n"
    > + "Perhaps you should enable DMA using \"hdparm\"?\n"
    > + "etc..........)\n");
    > printk(KERN_WARNING "Falling back to a sane timesource.\n");
    > clock_fallback();
    > }
    >
    > not that you have to actually listen to me or anything... :-)

    Looks good by me. Would you mind sending such a patch to Andrew?

    thanks
    -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/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.048 / U:0.476 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site