[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <200712081627.45937.mb@bu3sch.de>
Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 16:27:45 +0100
From: Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Mark Lord <lkml@....ca>, 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>,
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
On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:13:41 Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * 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.
What about msleep()? I suspect problems in b43 because of this issue.
msleep() returning too early. Is that possible with this bug?
--
Greetings Michael.
--
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