[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.1.10.0809011136340.12958@nehalem.linux-foundation.org>
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 11:42:38 -0700 (PDT)
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Larry Finger <Larry.Finger@...inger.net>
cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...k.pl>,
Alok Kataria <akataria@...are.com>,
Michael Buesch <mb@...sch.de>
Subject: Re: Regression in 2.6.27 caused by commit bfc0f59
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Larry Finger wrote:
>
> TSC calibrated against PIT
> Detected 428.823 MHz processor.
Ok, Thomas, that means that the PIT is reliable (not surprising), and the
PM_TIMER isn't (again, I'm not horribly surprised). And HPET isn't
available, of course.
The old x86-32 code never even bothered with the PM_TIMER for calibration.
I don't understand why the x86-64 code bothers with it either. Why not
just drop that whole broken thing, and just depend on the PIT if there is
no HPET?
I would also like to point out that the 32-bit code actually had a much
nicer PIT setup, using the much better documented mach_prepare_counter()
and mach_countup() helper functions. I'm unhappy to note that the new
"common" code uses what appears to be the inferior code.
Also, note that this is _not_ a new issue. See "verify_pmtmr_rate()" in
drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.c, along with all the code to check that the
reads are stable in "init_acpi_pm_clocksource()".
IOW, the PM_TIMER has been found to be broken before. Depending on it for
calibration is broken.
Linus
--
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