[lkml]   [2004]   [Jan]   [23]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.1 "clock preempt"?
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?


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:00    [W:0.059 / U:9.936 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site