On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:33:27 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > * Michael Buesch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Saturday 08 December 2007 16:13:41 Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > > > > * Mark Lord <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > >> ... > > > >> thanks. I do get the impression that most of this can/should wait > > > >> until > > > >> 2.6.25. The patches look quite dangerous. > > > > .. > > > > > > > > I confess to not really trying hard to understand everything in this > > > > thread, but the implication seems to be that this bug might affect > > > > udelay() and possibly jiffies ? > > > > > > no, it cannot affect jiffies. (jiffies was a red herring all along) > > > > > > udelay() cannot be affected either - sched_clock() has no effect on > > > udelay(). _But_, when there are TSC problems then tsc based udelay() > > > suffers too so the phenomenons may _seem_ related. > > > > What about msleep()? I suspect problems in b43 because of this issue. > > msleep() returning too early. Is that possible with this bug? > > i cannot see how. You can verify msleep by running something like this: > > while :; do time usleep 111000; done > > you should see a steady stream of: > > real 0m0.113s > real 0m0.113s > real 0m0.113s > > (on an idle system). If it fluctuates, with occasional longer delays, > there's some timer problem present.
Does the sleeping and timing use different time references? I mean, if it uses the same reference and that reference does fluctuate you won't see it in the result. But anyway, Stefano. Can you test this? -- Greetings Michael. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
