linux-kernel - Re: [3/3] 2.6.21-rc7: known regressions (v2)

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

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-Id: <1177548573.6401.36.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date:	Wed, 25 Apr 2007 17:49:33 -0700
From:	john stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
To:	Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Cc:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de>,
	Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Guilherme Schroeder <guilherme@...tralinf.com.br>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>, ak@...e.de,
	linux-pm@...ts.linux-foundation.org,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>
Subject: Re: [3/3] 2.6.21-rc7: known regressions (v2)

On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 20:33 -0400, Len Brown wrote:
> On Wednesday 25 April 2007 14:08, john stultz wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-04-25 at 04:06 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > > On Mon, 23 Apr 2007 23:49:09 +0200 Adrian Bunk <bunk@...sta.de> wrote:
> > > > Subject    : acpi_pm clocksource loses time on x86-64
> > > > References : http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/17/143
> > > > Submitter  : Mikael Pettersson <mikpe@...uu.se>
> > > > Handled-By : John Stultz <johnstul@...ibm.com>
> > > > Status     : problem is being debugged
> > 
> > 
> > The ACPI PM one is *really* odd as its the same clocksource driver on
> > both arches. I had Mikael cut out the clocksource frequency adjustments,
> > and confirmed both i386 and x86_64 are using the same base freq
> > (confirmed via printks).
> 
> If this chipset's PM-timer loses "several minutes per hour" on x86_64,
> I would expect it to do the same on i386.  I can't imagine what the
> difference could be.  Any possibility it is the 24-bit version
> and we do something funky on wraparound?

No, we assume the PM timer wraps at 24 bits and mask it as such on all
systems.

-john

-
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/