On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 10:01:20 +0100 Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ok, just to make sure we are all synced up. I made 8 patches related to > this problem category (and all the trickle effects). 3 are upstream > already, 5 are pending for v2.6.25. One out of those 5 is an immaterial > cleanup patch - which leaves us 4 patches to sort out. > > So i'd suggest for you to try latest -git - that will tell us whether > udelay() is acceptable on your box right now. > > i've attached those 4 patches: > > x86-sched_clock-re-scheduler-fix-x86-regression-in-native-sched-clock.patch > x86-cpu-clock-idle-event.patch > sched-printk-recursion-fix.patch > sched-printk-clock-fix.patch > > none of them is _supposed_ to have any effect on udelay(), but the > interactions in this area are weird. Exactly, none of them have any effect on udelay(). > [ note: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME will be broken and only fixed in v2.6.25, so > use some other time metric for determining mdelay quality. ] > > plus then there's this patch: > > http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/12/7/100 > > is it perhaps this one that fixed udelay for you? [ which would be much > more expected, as this patch changes udelay ;-) ] Yes, this one did. mdelay(2000) still gives delays between 2 and 2.9s, which is acceptable. I have marked the regression as CODE_FIX. -- Ciao Stefano -- 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/
