* Pavel Machek <pa...@ucw.cz> wrote:
> > Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
> > quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
>
> TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]
The TSC is just a 64-bit counter that can be read very cheaply.
If the TSC is _implemented_ precisely in hardware and is kept in sync over
CPUs then it's obviously fit for long-term precise timekeeping from that
point on.
> [...] I guess it may work ok for short naps, [...]
Historically the TSC was not very precise nor kept in sync, but see the
measurements from Feng Tang, it's very precise now on good hardware - and
it's also a very cheap to read clocksource.
> [...] but some people suspend their machines for longer than that. Plus
> I wonder how it will interfere with /etc/adjtime.
If it's precise then why should it interfere?
The history of the TSC being problematic can be ignored the moment CPU
makers fix it completely - and apparently that is happening...
Thanks,
Ingo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
