[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080825112244.34b2fe67@infradead.org>
Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2008 11:22:44 -0700
From: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...radead.org>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
cpufreq@...r.kernel.org, Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
Subject: Re: [BUG] cpufreq: constant cpu_khz
On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:57:12 +0200
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu> wrote:
>
> * Dave Jones <davej@...emonkey.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > > hm, that too is due to the tsc.c unification - Alok Cc:-ed.
> > > Applied your fix to x86/urgent.
> >
> > ACKed-by: Dave Jones <davej@...hat.com>
> >
> > Good catch Peter. I'm puzzled how that bug was latent on 64bit for
> > so long with no-one realising though.
>
> i think it's the combination of these two factors:
>
> - bootup frequently is typically full-speed, so we calibrate things
> right
>
> - cpufreq events are relatively slow-scale - and when they trigger
> the system is definitely not under load. So how precisely the
> scheduler functions isnt all that important in such scenarios -
> there's tons of CPU power available.
>
- many many of the 64 bit capable cpus are constant-tsc anyway
--
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