Re: tsc timer related problems/questions

2007-09-11 Thread Dennis Lubert
Also thanks to all the others for their reply! Am Montag, den 10.09.2007, 19:19 -0600 schrieb Robert Hancock: > Dennis Lubert wrote: > > Hello list, > > [105771.581838] [] start_secondary+0x474/0x483 > > > > Question: Is this a known bug already or should further investigation > > take place? >

Re: tsc timer related problems/questions

2007-09-10 Thread Robert Hancock
Dennis Lubert wrote: Hello list, we are encountering a few behaviours regarding the ways to get accurate timer values under Linux that we would call bugs, and where we are currently stuck in further diagnosing and/or fixing. Background: We are developing for SMP servers with up to 8 CPUs (mostl

Re: tsc timer related problems/questions

2007-09-09 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Sun, 9 Sep 2007 20:17:28 +0200 (CEST) Jan Engelhardt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Sep 9 2007 17:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > >> > >> Question: Why are only Intel CPUs considered as stable? Could > >> there be implemented a more sophisticated heuristic, that actually > >> does some tests

Re: tsc timer related problems/questions

2007-09-09 Thread Jan Engelhardt
On Sep 9 2007 17:49, Arjan van de Ven wrote: >> >> Question: Why are only Intel CPUs considered as stable? Could there be >> implemented a more sophisticated heuristic, that actually does some >> tests for tsc stability? > >on AMD multi-socket systems, afaik the tsc is not synchronized between >p

Re: tsc timer related problems/questions

2007-09-09 Thread Arjan van de Ven
On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 18:31:45 +0200 Dennis Lubert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, > > [105771.523771] BUG: soft lockup detected on CPU#1! > [105771.527869] > [105771.527871] Call Trace: > [105771.536079][] _spin_lock+0x9/0xb > [105771.540294] [] softlockup_tick+0xd2/0xe7 > [105771.544359] []