[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071208151341.GA25413@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:13:41 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>, stefano.brivio@...imi.it,
Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@...oo.com.au>,
Robert Love <rml@...h9.net>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>, Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] scheduler: fix x86 regression in native_sched_clock
* Mark Lord <lkml@....ca> wrote:
> Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> ...
>> thanks. I do get the impression that most of this can/should wait until
>> 2.6.25. The patches look quite dangerous.
> ..
>
> I confess to not really trying hard to understand everything in this
> thread, but the implication seems to be that this bug might affect
> udelay() and possibly jiffies ?
no, it cannot affect jiffies. (jiffies was a red herring all along)
udelay() cannot be affected either - sched_clock() has no effect on
udelay(). _But_, when there are TSC problems then tsc based udelay()
suffers too so the phenomenons may _seem_ related.
> If so, then fixing it has to be a *must* for 2.6.24, as otherwise
> we'll get all sorts of one-in-while odd driver bugs.. like maybe these
> two for starters:
>
> [Bug 9492] 2.6.24: false double-clicks from USB mouse
> [Bug 9489] 20000+ wake-ups/second in 2.6.24
iirc these high rate wakeups happened on 2.6.22 too.
Ingo
--
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