On Sun, Jan 16, 2005 at 03:20:47PM +1100, Rusty Russell wrote: > On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 08:59 +0100, Andi Kleen wrote: > > I think my patch is better. It at least keeps all the > > baggage out of the normal run paths. Doing this check at each timer > > interrupt > > doesn't make much sense. > > It doesn't penalize the architectures which do the right thing already. > If this weren't i386 we were talking about... > > But adding a bizarro "pre-prepare" notifier verged on nonsensical 8(. I
I don't see the big issue. Preparse is just not as early as you thought. > prefer an explicit "init_timers_early()" call as a workaround; I'll code > that up and test tomorrow, when I'm back in the office with an SMP box > to test. > > I'm also not clear on why we need to enable interrupts around > calibrate_delay() on secondary processors, but I'll try that too and > find out 8) Because you cannot calibrate the timer without a timer tick. Even if you changed that it wouldn't help because the race can as well happen in the idle loop on the secondaries. -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/
