On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 13:05 +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 11:03:15AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > > This?I sent it to you earlier this week:
> >
> > Sorry haven't processed those yet.
> >
> > Ah. The correct fix here is to clear the tsc flag in boot_cpu_data
> > when the
* Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > please send me your current sched-clock.c, i'll redo any remaining
> > > cleanups.
> >
> > It needs at least one new preliminary patch (to add on_cpu_single);
> > please get the series from
> > ftp://ft
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > please send me your current sched-clock.c, i'll redo any remaining
> > cleanups.
>
> It needs at least one new preliminary patch (to add on_cpu_single);
> please get the series from
> ftp://ftp.firstfloor.org/pub/ak/x86_64/quilt/patches-2.6.22-rc2-gi
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 12:12:48PM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > please indicate that you've picked up my style cleanups, i dont want
> > > to redo all this a few days/weeks down the line ...
> >
> > It's done slightly differently now due to confl
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 11:03:15AM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote:
> > This?I sent it to you earlier this week:
>
> Sorry haven't processed those yet.
>
> Ah. The correct fix here is to clear the tsc flag in boot_cpu_data
> when the option is set. Will do that.
Hmm I double checked this now; tsc_di
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's done slightly differently now due to conflicting earlier changes,
> but the end result should be about what you intended. You're also
> still credited in the cleanup patch of course.
you totally misunderstood me. My problem isnt credit. I've got
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > please indicate that you've picked up my style cleanups, i dont want
> > to redo all this a few days/weeks down the line ...
>
> It's done slightly differently now due to conflicting earlier changes,
> but the end result should be about what you inte
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 11:19:28AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > This?I sent it to you earlier this week:
> >
> > Sorry haven't processed those yet.
> >
> > Ah. The correct fix here is to clear the tsc flag in boot_cpu_data
> > when the optio
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > This?I sent it to you earlier this week:
>
> Sorry haven't processed those yet.
>
> Ah. The correct fix here is to clear the tsc flag in boot_cpu_data
> when the option is set. Will do that.
please indicate that you've picked up my style cleanup
> This?I sent it to you earlier this week:
Sorry haven't processed those yet.
Ah. The correct fix here is to clear the tsc flag in boot_cpu_data
when the option is set. Will do that.
-Andi
>
> From: Rusty Russell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> If you set tsc_disable (eg "notsc" on cmdline), sch
On Fri, 25 May 2007 10:45:47 +0200 Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >
> > * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > > > arch/i386/kernel/sched-clock.c (now built on x86_64 too with the
> > > > patch i sent) uses the tsc
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > must be an -mm fix. I used -mm as a basis of my work. Please apply
> > my patch.
>
> I would prefer to find out why the mm patch was added and then
> hopefully remove it. IMNSHO it should not be needed.
it comes in via:
fix-x86_64-mm-sched-clock
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:44:26AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > arch/i386/kernel/sched-clock.c (now built on x86_64 too with the
> > > patch i sent) uses the tsc_disable global flag which is non-existent
> > > on x86_64. So my tsc.h change adds t
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > arch/i386/kernel/sched-clock.c (now built on x86_64 too with the
> > patch i sent) uses the tsc_disable global flag which is non-existent
> > on x86_64. So my tsc.h change adds that global flag, always-defined
> > to 0.
>
> My version of sched_clock
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:34:31AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > Hmm indeed. I actually had it correct at some point (i remember
> > > > fixing 64bit compile errors in sched-clock ;-). I guess the
> > > > Makefile hunk accidentially dropped out
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmm indeed. I actually had it correct at some point (i remember
> > > fixing 64bit compile errors in sched-clock ;-). I guess the
> > > Makefile hunk accidentially dropped out during some later merging
> > > and this didn't get noticed due to the w
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 10:04:15AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > the i386 version was supposed to be used. This patch fixes that.
> > > Booted and tested on x86_64 and i386.
> >
> > Hmm indeed. I actually had it correct at some point (i remember f
* Peter Zijlstra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > Subject: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()
> > From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > sched_clock() is totally broken on x86_64, because it is not defined by
> > the architecture at al
On Fri, 2007-05-25 at 09:54 +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Subject: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> sched_clock() is totally broken on x86_64, because it is not defined by
> the architecture at all! It fell the victim to the opaqueness of
> __attribute_
* Andi Kleen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > the i386 version was supposed to be used. This patch fixes that.
> > Booted and tested on x86_64 and i386.
>
> Hmm indeed. I actually had it correct at some point (i remember fixing
> 64bit compile errors in sched-clock ;-). I guess the Makefile hunk
On Fri, May 25, 2007 at 09:54:46AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> Subject: [patch] x86_64: fix sched_clock()
> From: Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> sched_clock() is totally broken on x86_64, because it is not defined by
> the architecture at all! It fell the victim to the opaqueness of
> __att
21 matches
Mail list logo
