[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20071215225943.GE2434@elf.ucw.cz>
Date: Sat, 15 Dec 2007 23:59:43 +0100
From: Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com>,
"David P. Reed" <dpreed@...d.com>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86_64: fix problems due to use of "outb" to port 80
on some AMD64x2 laptops, etc.
On Fri 2007-12-14 15:23:55, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Rene Herman <rene.herman@...il.com> wrote:
>
> > --- a/init/main.c
> > +++ b/init/main.c
> > @@ -229,10 +229,9 @@ static int __init obsolete_checksetup(char *line)
> > }
> >
> > /*
> > - * This should be approx 2 Bo*oMips to start (note initial shift), and will
> > - * still work even if initially too large, it will just take slightly longer
> > + * Initial value roughly corresponds to a 1 GHz CPU
> > */
> > -unsigned long loops_per_jiffy = (1<<12);
> > +unsigned long loops_per_jiffy = 1000000000 / HZ;
> >
> > EXPORT_SYMBOL(loops_per_jiffy);
>
> this is a factor of ~2400 increase - this will take an eternity to boot
> on any older CPU.
I don't think we are using outb_p before loops_per_jiffy are
initialized -- I believe I'd see oopsen if we did. Factor 2400
increase is bad, but if it only converts 10x 1usec delay into 10x
24msec delay, it is not _that_ bad.
Pavel
--
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
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