On Tuesday 05 June 2007 23:15:28 H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > I don't think it's a good idea for the TSC. There are various
> > setups where it is unreliable and also often simulators don't
> > implement it correctly. And it's always a valuable workaround
> > to be able to tu
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a good idea for the TSC. There are various
> setups where it is unreliable and also often simulators don't
> implement it correctly. And it's always a valuable workaround
> to be able to turn it off.
>
For all I can tell, if this is the case, then CONFIG
>
> That's a vendor check foul. That should be a CPU feature flag.
>
> Looks like there is some work to be done here.
No.
That would just move that code elsewhere, but there is still only
a single caller who actually uses this. Besides there are further
checks to be done here (see x86-64) whic
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a good idea for the TSC. There are various
> setups where it is unreliable and also often simulators don't
> implement it correctly. And it's always a valuable workaround
> to be able to turn it off.
>
I dug some more into the TSC code, and found some ot
Andi Kleen wrote:
>
> I don't think it's a good idea for the TSC. There are various
> setups where it is unreliable and also often simulators don't
> implement it correctly. And it's always a valuable workaround
> to be able to turn it off.
>
> Except possibly for the FPU only features used by t
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 18:16, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
> Yes. Since there is now a mechanism to get a clean message out, it
> seemed like a good idea to extend the benefit of static determination.
> Andi already had in his tree -- and I copied it -- code to deal with
> stuff like "cpu_has_tsc" as a
Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:24:52 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 15:11, Rusty Russell wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 12:01 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> But TSC is a "required feature", so "cpu_has_tsc" is always true.
Hmm? It isn'
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 16:24:52 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 15:11, Rusty Russell wrote:
> > On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 12:01 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > > But TSC is a "required feature", so "cpu_has_tsc" is always true.
> > >
> > > Hmm? It isn't. What makes you
On Tuesday 05 June 2007 15:11, Rusty Russell wrote:
> On Tue, 2007-06-05 at 12:01 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > But TSC is a "required feature", so "cpu_has_tsc" is always true.
> >
> > Hmm? It isn't. What makes you think so?
>
> Interestingly it seems to be only in -mm.
If it is then it doesn't
9 matches
Mail list logo
