[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20150603003938.GQ1187@tassilo.jf.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 2015 17:39:38 -0700
From: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>,
X86 ML <x86@...nel.org>, "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Len Brown <lenb@...nel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in
quick_pit_calibrate()
On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 05:21:27PM -0700, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 4:38 PM, Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 02, 2015 at 11:03:26PM +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Tue, 2 Jun 2015, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>
> >> > > There's the code in tsc_msr.c. It should be relatively
> >> > > straightforward to extend it to cover everything that intel_pstate
> >> > > supports.
> >> >
> >> > That's a good idea, but we still need an always working fallback when the
> >> > model number is not available. So Adrian's patch is needed in any
> >> > case.
> >>
> >> Nonsense. The slow calibration is already a working fallback.
> >
> > Please read Adrian's description again. It's not working when the PIT read is
> > too slow. That is when the new algorithm is needed.
> >
>
> tglx's suggestion was to use slow calibration as a fallback.
You mean the last fallback we have today?
That one doesn't work if the PIT read is too slow.
And Adrian's patch is fixing that.
-Andi
--
ak@...ux.intel.com -- Speaking for myself only
--
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