[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <1180116978.14844.69.camel@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 11:16:18 -0700
From: Dave Hansen <hansendc@...ibm.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com>,
Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>,
Satyam Sharma <satyam.sharma@...il.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
"John G. Stultz [imap]" <johnstul@...ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [patch] i386, numaq: enable TSCs again
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 10:41 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> * William Lee Irwin III <wli@...omorphy.com> wrote:
> > > yes, that's what i meant under 'slightly async'. Some AMD CPUs are
> > > like that too and sched_clock() now handles that fine. So we should
> > > try my patch.
> >
> > Sorry, then. I took slight to mean something else. In any event I was
> > only quantifying things. I've no opinion whatsoever on the impact of
> > the code on NUMA-Q, only some recall of its operating characteristics.
>
> there's no need to apologize at all! Thanks for reminding us about the
> time-scale and nature of the TSC drift on NUMAQ. I was worried that
> maybe the TSC was totally unusable for some reason - but that's
> fortunately not the case. So we now have one quirk less, hopefully :-)
Last I remember, it was totally useless for timekeeping, but was useful
for cpu-local time measurements.
John, it's still useless for time, right? Does sched_clock() really fix
it?
-- Dave
-
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