linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/8] x86/apic: allow use of lapic timer early calibration result

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 11 May 2010 13:51:14 -0700
From:	"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>
To:	"Pan, Jacob jun" <jacob.jun.pan@...el.com>
CC:	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Jacob Pan <jacob.jun.pan@...ux.intel.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "Du, Alek" <alek.du@...el.com>,
	Arjan van de Ven <arjan@...ux.intel.com>,
	"Tang, Feng" <feng.tang@...el.com>,
	LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/8] x86/apic: allow use of lapic timer early calibration
 result

On 05/11/2010 01:46 PM, Pan, Jacob jun wrote:
> 
> The question I have is the reference clock used for calibrating those local timers,
> PIT, HPET, PM timer how should they be ranked. Can we make those known freq
> clocksource devices available at this point so that we can use the clocksource
> abstraction and its ranking automatically?
> 

Personally I'd rank the PMTMR first, then HPET, then PIT, just based on
the relative complexity and relative known bugginess of the various
implementations.

The PMTMRs main defect is that it can't generate an interrupt; it's just
a dumb counter.

	-hpa

-- 
H. Peter Anvin, Intel Open Source Technology Center
I work for Intel.  I don't speak on their behalf.

--
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/