[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.LFD.2.00.0902062040000.22800@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 20:40:31 +0100 (CET)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Ben Greear <greearb@...delatech.com>
cc: Jiri Kosina <jkosina@...e.cz>,
linux-kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
rusty@...tcorp.com.au
Subject: Re: PATCH: Allow user to force 'tsc' to be treated as stable.
On Fri, 6 Feb 2009, Ben Greear wrote:
> Jiri Kosina wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Feb 2009, Ben Greear wrote:
> >
> > > Allow user to force TSC as stable clock-source. Works around BIOS issues
> > > in the FWA-7304 (Via CN700 chipset) system, and possibly others.
> >
> > How do you know that the TSC is stable on such system? What was the reason
> > for kernel marking it unstable?
>
> I've used it for a timing source in my own modules and it has
> worked well. It could still be broken in some way, but if so,
> I'm not sure how to detect it. Ingo sent me a program to test
> the tsc, and at least for short runs, it showed no problem.
>
> Another person suggested the system might think it is unstable
> because I have ACPI disabled in my BIOS and that might cause
> the kernel not to have a 'PM timer' that it uses to check the
> tsc?
>
> Other than that, I have no idea why the kernel thinks the tsc
> is unstable.
Can you please provide the dmesg output, so I can see in which context
this happens.
Thanks,
tglx
--
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