> I would really like someone in the know to let me know whether this is actually
> a measurable efficiency loss in the case of TSC-enabled kernels. I believe it
> has NO loss of efficiency for any other kernel. I also would like input on how
> the patch could be done better.
If you did the TSC test and then for a kernel that supported non tsc
operation set the indirect pointer (as all those kernels did) and on a TSC
only kernel panic()'d then there would be no loss
> I used loops_per_sec based on Alan's suggestion. I have no preference either
> way.
loops_per_sec when TSC generated is extremely accurate. And if not TSC
generated then the CPU has no TSC so the whole issue hasnt come up..
> anyway, though a one-line change may make it work. Assuming that he is
> experiencing the same problems as I am and assuming that his CPUs really are
> the same speed, does anyone know why this may happen? I cannot think of a way
> to make my patch dynamically determine this sort of problem?
One problem at a time 8)
-
Linux SMP list: FIRST see FAQ at http://www.irisa.fr/prive/dmentre/smp-howto/
To Unsubscribe: send "unsubscribe linux-smp" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
