[lkml]   [2005]   [Jan]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH] dynamic tick patch
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 15:45 -0800, john stultz wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 00:26 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 14:59 -0800, George Anzinger wrote:
> > > I don't think you will ever get good time if you EVER reprogramm the PIT.
> >
> > Why not ? If you have a continous time source, which keeps track of
> > "ticks" regardless the CPU state, why should PIT reprogramming be evil ?
> That's a big if. The problem is that while the PIT has its problems
> (such as lost ticks), it runs at a known frequency and is reasonably
> accurate. Time sources like the TSC have the problem that it doesn't run
> at a known frequency, and thus we have to calibrate it (usually using
> the PIT). Unfortunately this calibration is not extremely accurate
> (George can go on to the reasons why), which causes the TSC to be a poor
> stand alone time source.
> That said, the PIT is a poor time source as well, as it does loose ticks
> and is very slow to access. ACPI PM and HPET are better as they don't
> have the lost tick problem, but they are still off chip and slower to
> access then the TSC.

And they aren't available on every board - especially not on embedded

> For an example of your ideal continuous timesource, check out the
> timebase on PPC/PPC64. Other arches also have similar well behaved time
> hardware.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Unfortunately we live in the x86 universe.


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 14:09    [W:0.066 / U:2.324 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site