[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1506221514150.4107@nanos>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 15:14:59 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Adrian Hunter <adrian.hunter@...el.com>
cc: Andi Kleen <ak@...ux.intel.com>,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>,
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>,
George Spelvin <linux@...izon.com>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>, a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl,
arjan@...radead.org, bp@...en8.de, penberg@....fi,
akpm@...ux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] x86, tsc: Allow for high latency in
quick_pit_calibrate()
On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> On 03/06/15 19:23, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Jun 2015, Adrian Hunter wrote:
> >
> >> On 03/06/15 06:30, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >>>> Then the changelog should say that I think. The current text says
> >>>> "Fast TSC calibration will always fail", which, to me, suggests that
> >>>> either the slow calibration will work or that the changelog message
> >>>> should be changed.
> >>>
> >>> Ok. No, the slow calibration works I believe.
> >>
> >> Yeah, so the (only?) downside is the 50ms wasted on Fast TSC
> >> calibration. What about this?
> >
> > I'm certainly happy to apply this one.
>
> George Spelvin began investigating improving quick_pit_calibrate() but Ingo
> anyway suggested this patch as the first, so can this be applied?
Oh, yes. I simply forgot to pick it up. Thanks for the reminder.
tglx
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists