| lists.openwall.net | lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC | |
|
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
| ||
|
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 13:36:43 +0100 (MET) From: Jan Engelhardt <jengelh@...ux01.gwdg.de> To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de> cc: Luca Tettamanti <kronos.it@...il.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org Subject: Re: NO_HZ: timer interrupt stuck [Re: Linux 2.6.21-rc1] On Feb 22 2007 00:17, Thomas Gleixner wrote: >On Thu, 2007-02-22 at 00:04 +0100, Luca Tettamanti wrote: >> >> Interrupt 0 is stuck at 114 (the number is consistent across reboots). I >> don't experience any problem, time is running fine. Still it's strange >> that the timer is doing nothing; maybe something other than the PIT is >> used for time keeping? > >Yes, we switch away from PIT and use the local APIC timer. (LOC) What's the benefit of doing so - and why has not it been done before? I mean, I run a regular 2.6.18.6, /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource (is this related?) shows "acpi_pm", but the IRQ0 counter increases at HZ. Maybe I am confusing things, but why the need for PIT when clocksource is acpi_pm anyway? Jan -- - 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