[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20140328024348.GA31111@feng-snb>
Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2014 10:43:48 +0800
From: Feng Tang <feng.tang@...el.com>
To: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
Cc: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
Clemens Ladisch <clemens@...isch.de>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: hpet: Don't default CONFIG_HPET_TIMER to be y for
X86_64
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 02:27:26PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:52 PM, Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net> wrote:
> > On 03/27/2014 04:02 AM, Clemens Ladisch wrote:
> >> Feng Tang wrote:
> >> The help text still says:
> >> | You can safely choose Y here. [...]
> >> | Choose N to continue using the legacy 8254 timer.
> >>
> >> Are these statements still true for those platforms?
> >
> > They aren't true for modern desktop and server platforms -- the TSC is
> > used regardless of hpet availability.
>
> While I suspect the comment above is in relation to the non-apic
> timer. But with respect to timekeeping, our point is true assuming the
> TSC isn't mucked up by the BIOS. My 1yr old i7-3930k single socket
> system still has some wonky BIOS bug that offsets the boot core's TSC.
> And that's intel's bios, so I can only imagine other vendors have
> found other ways to cause trouble.
>
> So yea, the hpet availability for timekeeping is still important, as
> the TSC can still be problematic.
Yes, agreed. My patch only provides a way to disable HPET for some specific
platforms :)
Thanks,
Feng
--
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