On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 00:05 -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
> > machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while
> > on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it d
On Tue, Sep 06, 2005 at 12:32:32PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Try running this from userspace (and watch for time going completely
> crazy). Try it in mainline, too; it broke even vanilla some time
> ago. Need to run as root.
Note that kernel relies on some backing time source (like TSC/PM)
to
Hi!
> > With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
> > machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while
> > on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so
> > well (time sped up after 3 or 4 hours). Hence I consider this
> > particular patch will need mor
On Fri, Sep 02, 2005 at 11:04:32PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:07:22PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> > Srivatsa, could you try the dyntick-test.c on your system after booting
> > to init=/bin/sh to make the system as idle as possible?
>
> Tony,
> I get this
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 01:15 -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> Lee Revell wrote:
>
> > Are lost ticks really that common? If so, any idea what's disabling
> >
> >interrupts for so long (or if it's a hardware issue)? And if not, it
> >seems like you'd need an artificial way to simulate lost ticks in o
On Sat, Sep 03, 2005 at 12:05:00AM -0400, Lee Revell wrote:
> Are lost ticks really that common? If so, any idea what's disabling
It becomes common with a patch like dynamic ticks, where we purposefully
skip ticks when CPU is idle. When the CPU wakes up, we have to regain
the lost/skipped ticks a
Lee Revell wrote:
Are lost ticks really that common? If so, any idea what's disabling
interrupts for so long (or if it's a hardware issue)? And if not, it
seems like you'd need an artificial way to simulate lost ticks in order
to test this stuff.
Lee
Yes - I know many people with laptops w
Lee Revell wrote:
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 14:18 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
In my experience, turning off DMA for IDE disks is a pretty good way to
generate lost ticks :-)
For this to "work" you have to unset "unmask IRQ" with hdparm, right?
I'm not familiar with that method. When I've exp
On Sat, 2005-09-03 at 14:18 +1000, Peter Williams wrote:
> In my experience, turning off DMA for IDE disks is a pretty good way to
> generate lost ticks :-)
For this to "work" you have to unset "unmask IRQ" with hdparm, right?
Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linu
Lee Revell wrote:
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while
on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so
well (time sped up after 3 or 4 ho
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 22:42 +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
> machine (Intel 4way Pentium 3 box) overnight, while
> on another newer machine (Intel 4way Xeon with HT) it didnt do so
> well (time sped up after 3 or 4 hours). Hence I
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:07:22PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> Srivatsa, could you try the dyntick-test.c on your system after booting
> to init=/bin/sh to make the system as idle as possible?
Tony,
I get this o/p when I run your test on my SMP system with
2.6.13-mm1 + Con's latest patch
[ Sorry didnt see this mail earlier ]
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 06:53:12PM +, Erik Andrén wrote:
> Does these patches compile nicely against 2.6.13?
> Otherwise would it be possible for you to repost patches made against
> 2.6.13 instead for more public testing?
Con should be posting a consoli
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:07:22PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> I tried this quickly on a loaner ThinkPad T30, and needed the following
> patch to compile. The patch does work with PIT, but with lapic the
> system does not wake to timer interrupts :(
Even I have found that enabling lapic breaks i
* David Weinehall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050901 16:19]:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:07:22PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
> [snip]
> > I tried this quickly on a loaner ThinkPad T30, and needed the following
> > patch to compile. The patch does work with PIT, but with lapic the
> > system does not wake
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 04:07:22PM +0300, Tony Lindgren wrote:
[snip]
> I tried this quickly on a loaner ThinkPad T30, and needed the following
> patch to compile. The patch does work with PIT, but with lapic the
> system does not wake to timer interrupts :(
That may be a thinkpad issue; I have to
* Con Kolivas <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [050901 08:22]:
> On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:58 am, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
> > for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
> > tick consideration also.
> >
> > Pat
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 01:05:23PM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
> Yes, the only real differences are the two points mentioned in my first
> mail... I only wanted to help you fixing these.
Thanks for pointing them out. I have fixed it in the experimental version
that I have now.
> Well, that s
Hi Srivatsa,
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2005 12:28 schrieb Srivatsa Vaddagiri:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:42:23AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
> > Think about two adjacent regular timer interrupts. Now consider the first
> > one is handled very late (indeed even after the second interrupt al
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 09:42:23AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
> Think about two adjacent regular timer interrupts. Now consider the first one
> is handled very late (indeed even after the second interrupt already
> occoured). Then will see two "lost" ticks.
>
> Now directly the second timer
Am Donnerstag, 1. September 2005 09:23 schrieb Srivatsa Vaddagiri:
> On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 08:29:32AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
> > I tested the attached patch during the last night and it sems to work...
>
> A quick feedback on your patch:
>
> A litmus test that I use is if "zero" lost tic
On Thu, Sep 01, 2005 at 08:29:32AM +0200, Thomas Schlichter wrote:
> I tested the attached patch during the last night and it sems to work...
A quick feedback on your patch:
A litmus test that I use is if "zero" lost ticks are being hit,
which we should not w/o a patch like dynamic tick.
I stil
Hi Srivatsa,
on LKML I did see your patch trying to increase the accuracy of tme pmtmr by
directly converting the PM-timer-ticks to jiffies. I think this is a good
idea but as you already recognized, it is not completely correct...
There are at least these issues:
1. "offset_last" corresponds
On Thu, 1 Sep 2005 02:58 am, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
> for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
> tick consideration also.
>
> Patch 1/3 -> Fixup lost tick calculation in timer_pm.c
> Patch 2
On Wed, 2005-08-31 at 15:36 -0700, Zachary Amsden wrote:
> >I feel lost ticks can be based on cycles difference directly
> >rather than being based on microseconds that has elapsed.
> >
> >Following patch is in that direction.
> >
> >With this patch, time had kept up really well on one particular
Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:43PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
tick consideration also.
Patch 1/3 -> Fixup lost tic
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:43PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
> for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
> tick consideration also.
>
> Patch 2/3 -> Dyn-tick cleanups
This patch cleans
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:43PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
> for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
> tick consideration also.
>
> Patch 3/3 -> Use lost tick information in dyn-tick
On Wed, Aug 31, 2005 at 10:28:43PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> Following patches related to dynamic tick are posted in separate mails,
> for convenience of review. The first patch probably applies w/o dynamic
> tick consideration also.
>
> Patch 1/3 -> Fixup lost tick calculation in timer_
29 matches
Mail list logo
