linux-kernel - Re: Why do so many machines need "noapic"?

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: <46E5D44A.5000201@redhat.com>
Date:	Mon, 10 Sep 2007 19:33:30 -0400
From:	Chuck Ebbert <cebbert@...hat.com>
To:	Andi Kleen <andi@...stfloor.org>
CC:	Prakash Punnoor <prakash@...noor.de>,
	linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: Why do so many machines need "noapic"?

On 09/10/2007 03:44 PM, Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Yes, it has an hpet. And I tried every combination of options I could
>> think of.
> 
>> But, even stranger, x86_64 works (only i386 fails.)
> 
> x86-64 has quite different time code (at least until the dyntick patches
> currently in mm) 
> 
> Obvious thing would be to diff the boot messages and see if anything
> jumps out (e.g. in interrupt routing).  
> 
> Or check with mm and if x86-64 is broken there too then it's likely
> the new time code.

This is Fedora 8 and it already has the highres-timers code in x86_64.
But I was still comparing 2.6.22 on i386 to 2.6.23-rc5-git1 + highres-timers
on x86_64. 2.6.23-rc5 on i386 seems okay too, so whatever is happening it
only occurs on 2.6.22 here.
-
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/