[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071211084324.GC20172@elte.hu>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2007 09:43:24 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
Cc: Guillaume Chazarain <guichaz@...oo.fr>,
Stefano Brivio <stefano.brivio@...imi.it>,
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
* Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org> wrote:
> > 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 tsc no longer represents frequency, but is some fixed clock totally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)
X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC CPUs (all modern Intel CPUs) should be fine -
we dont do any TSC frequency fixups for them. The loops_per_jiffy fixup
looks like this:
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS))
cpu_data(freq->cpu).loops_per_jiffy =
cpufreq_scale(loops_per_jiffy_ref,
ref_freq, freq->new);
i.e. X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC excluded. The sched_clock() scaling factor
is modified like this:
if (!(freq->flags & CPUFREQ_CONST_LOOPS)) {
tsc_khz = cpu_khz;
preempt_disable();
set_cyc2ns_scale(cpu_khz, smp_processor_id());
so here X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC is excluded again. So the whole
frequency scaling issue will become a pure legacy issue only with time.
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