On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 15:36 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote: > >I feel lost ticks can be based on cycles difference directly > >rather than being based on microseconds that has elapsed. > > > >Following patch is in that direction. > > > >With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular > >machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while > >on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so > >well (time sped up after 3 or 4 hours). Hence I consider this > >particular patch will need more review/work. > > > > > > > > Does this patch help address the issues pointed out here? > > http://bugzilla.kernel.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5127
Unfortunately no. The issue there is that once the lost tick compensation code has fired, should those "lost" ticks appear later we end up over-compensating. This patch however does help to make sure that when the lost tick code fires, the error from converting to usecs doesn't bite us. And could probably go into mainline independent of the dynamic ticks patch (with further testing, of course). thanks -john - 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/
