* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050816 06:23]:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
> >
> > I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically c
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
>
> I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically cur_timer->mark_offset
> doesnt expect to be called from non-
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically cur_timer->mark_offset
doesnt expect to be called from non-timer interrupt handler. Hence it drops
one jiffy from the los
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:39:22AM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> The timer_opts interface is the existing interface, my work replaces it
> and separates timekeeping from the timer interrupt.
>
> You can find a cumulative version of my patch here:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0508.
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 21:17 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:15:38AM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > It may be a good idea to rebase this patch off the new generic time-
> > keeping
> > subsystem that John Stultz is working on.
>
> I _am_ using the new subsystem interf
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:35, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > timers that made no progress until interrupts drove the timers on again.
> > I built in both PIT and APIC dyntick mode into the kernel and the default
> > in the way I modified th
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:15:38AM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> It may be a good idea to rebase this patch off the new generic time-
> keeping
> subsystem that John Stultz is working on.
I _am_ using the new subsystem interface (->mark_offset) to catch up with lost
ticks. Only I don't think it is
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> timers that made no progress until interrupts drove the timers on again. I
> built in both PIT and APIC dyntick mode into the kernel and the default in
> the way I modified the patch is for APIC mode to be used if it's built in.
> Af
On Aug 13, 2005, at 20:18:28, Con Kolivas wrote:
It does seems there are some timing issues
with this patch, although it is also quite stable (up for 10 hours
now).
I've had a few interesting messages in my syslog suggesting problems:
Hangcheck: hangcheck value past margin!
and then later on
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:46, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:53:20AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Indeed this fixes it on my P4 so that it does skip ticks. However
> > presumably due to the code change I am having the reverse behaviour from
> > previously - it pauses for ages
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:53:20AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Indeed this fixes it on my P4 so that it does skip ticks. However presumably
> due to the code change I am having the reverse behaviour from previously - it
> pauses for ages when using PIT - worse so than previously in that if I dont
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:37, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say this doesn't appear to skip any ticks on my single P4
> > with SMP/SMT enabled.
>
> Con,
> I had enabled skipping ticks only in default_idle routine. So if
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this doesn't appear to skip any ticks on my single P4 with
> SMP/SMT enabled.
Con,
I had enabled skipping ticks only in default_idle routine. So if
you have a different idle route (which I suspect is the case)
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
> > breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
> > cutting of timers and now allows each idle C
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hi,
> Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
> breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
> cutting of timers and now allows each idle CPU to skip ticks independent
> of others. The patch is
15 matches
Mail list logo
