linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Alpha support for QEMU

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:	Thu, 18 Jul 2013 06:38:14 -0700
From:	Richard Henderson <rth@...ddle.net>
To:	Michael Cree <cree@...kato.ac.nz>
CC:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, ink@...assic.park.msu.ru,
	mattst88@...il.com, linux-alpha@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 00/10] Alpha support for QEMU

On 07/17/2013 06:14 PM, Michael Cree wrote:
> Tested the patch series applied against 3.10.1 on a 3-CPU ES45.  System came
> up fine but I noticed date was wrong and had been reset back to the start
> of the epoch (Jan 1 1970).  Appears it is not reading hardware clock
> correctly on boot.

Please scan the dmesg for the "Using epoch 2000 for rtc year 13" line,
and compare vs a similar message on the previous kernel.

> I manually set the clock to the correct time but noticed it is running slow,
> indeed in a period of 60s the system clock incremented by 21s (+/-1s) so
> would appear clock is running slow by a factor given by the number of CPUs.

That's curious.  I wonder if somehow I botched the smp changes, and I'm
not getting the timer interrupt either (1) enabled or (2) registered on
the secondary cpus...

Perhaps /proc/interrupts will confirm or deny this?


r~

--
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/