[lkml]   [2008]   [Sep]   [2]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Regression in 2.6.27 caused by commit bfc0f59
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> You're definitely right that this could easily be the _real_ problem.
> Especially as your TSC min value of 2160 is (a) pretty close to the
> expected time of a microsecond and (b) so stable that I actually do not
> believe that the PIT itself is at all emulated or the problem.

On that box, the PIT is probably real hardware or a damned good
emulation. When you look at the 10 loop values you see that it does
50% perfectly fine calibration loops. The others are just SMI
interruptions caused by random unknown crap in the BIOS.

> Btw - as to caring about the average value: that's pointless. If you only
> look at the average time the PIT read takes place, then it is going to
> approximate that "pit_count" thing in the end that I already did.
> Why? Because the average value should essentially end up being "(end_tsc -
> start_tsc) / pit_count". And if you just compare that to "min_tsc", then
> that should always be about a microsecond (on normal machines where the
> PIT is essentially on the old emulated internal "ISA" bus on the
> southbridge). So you end up with what I already posted, and you already
> dismissed.
> So average TSC is not any more interesting than "pit_count".

Yeah, you're right. Math is hard :)



 \ /
  Last update: 2008-09-02 23:15    [W:0.119 / U:3.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site