On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 22:41 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Daniel Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > we could make this clearer by renaming 'LOC' (which stands for > > > 'LOCal timer interupts' and was added [and misnamed] by yours truly > > > many moons ago) to 'apic-timer' and 'timer' to 'PIT-timer' but > > > /that/ would be more of a userspace visible change than the change > > > in the counter rates. > > > > If we change the current "timer" entry to be listed as "lapic-timer" > > and not "IO-APIC-edge" (or one of the other names) and replace it with > > the count from LOC , [...] > > doing that would not fake the old behavior (which is your suggestion), > LOC is per CPU, while the PIT timer irq that was there is global. > > But, as per the previous mails, the new behavior is just fine, because > /proc/interrupts just reflects reality. And the way the kernel utilizes > the hardware has just changed - for the better. > > The same happens when say a network driver implements NAPI: the IRQ > count goes way, way down. Or if a driver starts supporing MSI - the IRQ > line even moves to another one. Do we try to fix those counts up to > match the 'previous behavior'? Of course not. What you are suggesting > makes no sense, is against current kernel practices - as we pointed it > out to you 7 mails ago.
I'm not saying we should "fake" anything .. I'm saying list what's really happening .. In a human readable way . Your saying we should keep it unreadable, and let the users be that much more confused .. Which I don't agree with. > > [...] that would make sense cause that field already changes depending > > if you have a io-apic or not .. > > (that is something else: it's different because a different irq-chip is > behind it.) Why is that not the case with lapic ? Daniel - 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/
