[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <49CAC543.5020205@goop.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:58:59 -0700
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Ravikiran G Thirumalai <kiran@...lex86.org>
CC: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, Yinghai Lu <yinghai@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
shai@...lex86.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: don't compile vsmp_64 for 32bit
Ravikiran G Thirumalai wrote:
> The point in this thread was, is_vsmp_box() needs to be meaningful even when
> CONFIG_X86_VSMP is not on. This is needed because is_vsmp_box() is used to
> determine if the platform has reliable tscs.
>
Well, as I said, that code is inoperative at present. But aside from
that, how well will a non-VSMP kernel work on your hardware, with a
normal cacheline, etc. Is the tsc stability really all that important,
given that the kernel should notice if the tsc is busted pretty quickly
anyway.
unsynchronized_tsc() just returns a guess anyway, and if you don't have
X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC set, then it will return unstable for your
hardware anyway, even without the is_vsmp_box() test.
Failing that, you could add yourself to bad_tsc_dmi_table[] and have
that mark the tsc as unstable (you have DMI, right?).
J
--
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