| 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
| ||
|
Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 17:06:50 -0800 From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> To: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr> Cc: Stefano Brivio <stefano.brivio@...imi.it>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>, rjw@...k.pl, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, torvalds@...ux-foundation.org Subject: Re: 2.6.24-rc4-git5: Reported regressions from 2.6.23 On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 01:01:25 +0100 Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr> wrote: > Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote: > > > the frequency of both cores is the maximum of what linux sets each > > core to; > > Do you mean that the cpufreq code can be confused about the actual > frequency of the cores? it means that cpufreq doesn't know the actual frequency (although bios sometimes tells us about the relationship, often the bios just lies through it's teeth); it only knows what it asks for, not what it gets. We know it'll get at least what it asks for, but it can get more than it asks for basically. >That sounds like a big problem. it'll get way worse going forward. (but even on todays systems, the tsc no longer represents frequency, but is some fixed clock totally unrelated to cpu frequency) -- If you want to reach me at my work email, use arjan@...ux.intel.com For development, discussion and tips for power savings, visit http://www.lesswatts.org -- 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