Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 03 Sep 2005 14:18:43 +1000 | From | Peter Williams <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/3] Updated dynamic tick patches - Fix lost tick calculation in timer_pm.c |
| |
Lee Revell wrote: > On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > >>With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular >>machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while >>on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so >>well (time sped up after 3 or 4 hours). Hence I consider this >>particular patch will need more review/work. >> > > > Are lost ticks really that common? If so, any idea what's disabling > interrupts for so long (or if it's a hardware issue)? And if not, it > seems like you'd need an artificial way to simulate lost ticks in order > to test this stuff.
In my experience, turning off DMA for IDE disks is a pretty good way to generate lost ticks :-)
Peter -- Peter Williams pwil3058@bigpond.net.au
"Learning, n. The kind of ignorance distinguishing the studious." -- Ambrose Bierce - 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/
| |