[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200701090014.42144.ak@suse.de>
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:14:41 +0100
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...e.de>
To: discuss@...-64.org
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...l.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai.lu@....com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...l.org>, mingo@...hat.com,
Tobias Diedrich <ranma+kernel@...edrich.de>
Subject: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails.
> We just got a completely different bug reported that was confirmed to be
> caused by Andi's patch:
> AMD64/ATI : timer is running twice as fast as it should [1]
I have such a machine that showed this problem and when I wrote the patch I
tested it on it (and on a couple of others of course). No twice as fast on
my testing.
In fact there are two types of ATI machines: ones that have a BIOS workaround
for the original Linux issue and ones that don't. Keeping both
happy is not easy.
So I'm somewhat dubious on that. Where is that report?
>
> My whole point is that for 2.6.20, we can live with simply reverting
> Andi's commit.
I agree. It's more problematical than I expected. Reverting is
the best option right now.
-Andi
-
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