[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.21.1806232210110.8650@nanos.tec.linutronix.de>
Date: Sat, 23 Jun 2018 22:11:36 +0200 (CEST)
From: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
To: Pavel Tatashin <pasha.tatashin@...cle.com>
cc: steven.sistare@...cle.com, daniel.m.jordan@...cle.com,
linux@...linux.org.uk, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, john.stultz@...aro.org,
sboyd@...eaurora.org, x86@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
mingo@...hat.com, hpa@...or.com, douly.fnst@...fujitsu.com,
peterz@...radead.org, prarit@...hat.com, feng.tang@...el.com,
pmladek@...e.com, gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk,
linux-s390@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 09/11] x86/tsc: prepare for early sched_clock
On Sat, 23 Jun 2018, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Jun 2018, Pavel Tatashin wrote:
> > We will change sched_clock() to be called early.
>
> Why is this relevant? Does the issue only appear with that change?
So you forgot to answer this question. I did not find a system yet, which
actually exposes this behaviour on mainline.
Is this an artifact of your early sched clock thing?
Thanks,
tglx
Powered by blists - more mailing lists