* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050816 06:23]:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > > Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
> >
> > I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically c
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 23:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
>
> I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically cur_timer->mark_offset
> doesnt expect to be called from non-
On Tue, Aug 16, 2005 at 02:30:51AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Time definitely was lost the longer the machine was running.
I think I found the reason for time drift. Basically cur_timer->mark_offset
doesnt expect to be called from non-timer interrupt handler. Hence it drops
one jiffy from the los
On Mon, Aug 15, 2005 at 09:39:22AM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> The timer_opts interface is the existing interface, my work replaces it
> and separates timekeeping from the timer interrupt.
>
> You can find a cumulative version of my patch here:
> http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0508.
On Mon, 2005-08-15 at 21:17 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:15:38AM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> > It may be a good idea to rebase this patch off the new generic time-
> > keeping
> > subsystem that John Stultz is working on.
>
> I _am_ using the new subsystem interf
On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 01:35, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > timers that made no progress until interrupts drove the timers on again.
> > I built in both PIT and APIC dyntick mode into the kernel and the default
> > in the way I modified th
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:15:38AM -0400, Kyle Moffett wrote:
> It may be a good idea to rebase this patch off the new generic time-
> keeping
> subsystem that John Stultz is working on.
I _am_ using the new subsystem interface (->mark_offset) to catch up with lost
ticks. Only I don't think it is
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 10:18:28AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> timers that made no progress until interrupts drove the timers on again. I
> built in both PIT and APIC dyntick mode into the kernel and the default in
> the way I modified the patch is for APIC mode to be used if it's built in.
> Af
On Aug 13, 2005, at 20:18:28, Con Kolivas wrote:
It does seems there are some timing issues
with this patch, although it is also quite stable (up for 10 hours
now).
I've had a few interesting messages in my syslog suggesting problems:
Hangcheck: hangcheck value past margin!
and then later on
On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 02:46, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:53:20AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > Indeed this fixes it on my P4 so that it does skip ticks. However
> > presumably due to the code change I am having the reverse behaviour from
> > previously - it pauses for ages
On Sun, Aug 14, 2005 at 12:53:20AM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> Indeed this fixes it on my P4 so that it does skip ticks. However presumably
> due to the code change I am having the reverse behaviour from previously - it
> pauses for ages when using PIT - worse so than previously in that if I dont
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 21:37, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> > I'm sorry to say this doesn't appear to skip any ticks on my single P4
> > with SMP/SMT enabled.
>
> Con,
> I had enabled skipping ticks only in default_idle routine. So if
On Sat, Aug 13, 2005 at 04:51:07PM +1000, Con Kolivas wrote:
> I'm sorry to say this doesn't appear to skip any ticks on my single P4 with
> SMP/SMT enabled.
Con,
I had enabled skipping ticks only in default_idle routine. So if
you have a different idle route (which I suspect is the case)
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:35, Con Kolivas wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Hi,
> > Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
> > breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
> > cutting of timers and now allows each idle C
On Sat, 13 Aug 2005 06:19, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Hi,
> Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
> breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
> cutting of timers and now allows each idle CPU to skip ticks independent
> of others. The patch is
Hi,
Here's finally the SMP changes that I had promised. The patch
breaks the earlier restriction that all CPUs have to be idle before
cutting of timers and now allows each idle CPU to skip ticks independent
of others. The patch is against 2.6.13-rc6 and applies on top of Con's
patch main
16 matches
Mail list logo
