[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:01:00 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: "Pallipadi, Venkatesh" <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Typo in x86 apic.c with DIVISOR setup
* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> Ah, it was CONFG who is guilty :) This is true indeed, thanks!
yeah.
> But here is not the same
>
> apic_write(APIC_TDCR,
> (tmp_value & ~(APIC_TDR_DIV_1 | APIC_TDR_DIV_TMBASE)) |
> - APIC_TDR_DIV_16);
> + APIC_TDR_DIV);
>
> On x86_64 it will be 1 now but we've used 16 for a long time in
> purpose to slowdown processor's bus CLKs from APIC point of view. So I
> don't think it's good idea to change it now. If we start using divisor
> 1 today -- it would work for some time 'till processor bus raised to
> the some speed when we'll get counter underflow before calibration
> finished.
>
> So could you please split the patch into two:
> 1) Plain CONFG typo fix (which is completely Ack'ed)
> 2) APIC divisor patch (which I'm not sure if we've to touch)
okay, since we typoed that CONFG thing (sidenote: we really need a
.config flag that will start a grep that fails the build if there's a
non-existent CONFIG option anywhere in the tree), we basically tested
the divisor of 16 on a wide range of boxes.
So .. how about just standardizing on the divisor of 16 on both 32-bit
and 64-bit?
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists