[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20081118145540.GA32082@tsunami.ccur.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:55:40 -0500
From: Joe Korty <joe.korty@...r.com>
To: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
Cc: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com>,
H Peter Anvin <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Support always running TSC on Intel CPUs
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 09:09:52AM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@...el.com> wrote:
>
> > + if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
> > set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
> > + set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NOSTOP_TSC);
> > + }
>
> hm, the naming is a bit confusing. We now have 3 variants:
>
> X86_FEATURE_TSC
> X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC
> X86_FEATURE_NOSTOP_TSC
>
> NOSTOP_TSC is basically what CONSTANT_TSC should have been to begin
> with ;-)
>
> i'd suggest to rename it to this:
>
> X86_FEATURE_TSC
> X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_FREQ_TSC
> X86_FEATURE_STABLE_TSC
>
> ... with CONSTANT_FREQ_TSC not having any real role in the long run.
> (it's similarly problematic to a completely unstable TSC)
>
> does this sound ok?
To me, the new naming has the same head-scratching potential
as the old....
How about:
X86_FEATURE_TSC
X86_FEATURE_STABLE_TSC_OBSOLETE
X86_FEATURE_STABLE_TSC
Joe
--
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