On Thursday 01 February 2007 14:17, Jiri Bohac wrote: > On Thu, Feb 01, 2007 at 12:14:23PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > On Thursday 01 February 2007 10:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > TSC is either synchronized by design or not reliable > > > to be used for anything, let alone timekeeping. > > > > In my tree this is already done better by a patch from Ingo. > > Check if they look synchronized and don't use TSC if they are not. > > The whole purpose of this patchset is to make use of TSC even if > it's not synchronized.
It's still useful as a double check for platforms (like Intel single node) which are supposed to be synchronized. > Synchronizing it will not make anything better in any way -- the > implementation just does not care whether TSCs are synchronized. > That's why I think the synchronization code is not needed. It doesn't actively synchronize it, just checks if they look synchronized. -Andi - 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/
