From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932069AbWJHVi1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:38:27 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1751490AbWJHVi1 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:38:27 -0400 Received: from www.osadl.org ([213.239.205.134]:64959 "EHLO mail.tglx.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751488AbWJHVi0 (ORCPT ); Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:38:26 -0400 Subject: Re: + clocksource-increase-initcall-priority.patch added to -mm tree From: Thomas Gleixner Reply-To: tglx@linutronix.de To: Daniel Walker Cc: akpm@osdl.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, zippel@linux-m68k.org, LKML In-Reply-To: <1160343099.3693.153.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> References: <200610070153.k971ren4020838@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <1160294812.22911.8.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160302797.22911.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160319033.3693.19.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <1160319234.5686.12.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160322317.3693.47.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <1160323127.5686.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160324288.3693.71.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <1160326363.5686.48.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160327879.3693.97.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <1160334205.5686.72.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160339986.3693.135.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <1160340722.5686.85.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160342112.3693.146.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> <1160342424.5686.102.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160343099.3693.153.camel@c-67-180-230-165.hsd1.ca.comcast.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 23:38:25 +0200 Message-Id: <1160343506.5686.113.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.6.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 14:31 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 23:20 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 14:15 -0700, Daniel Walker wrote: > > > > > > > > Which one exactly? I'm not aware of a problem with the existing code at > > > > all. > > > > > > Clock shuffling. > > > > What's the problem with that ? It replaces clocks. Where _is_ the > > problem ? > > The problem is that it's not optimal to have clocks switching furiously. > This is something John notes as an issue in the unchanged > kernel/time/clocksource.c file. I don't see that behaviour on my machines and nobody complains about that. I don't care about stale comments. Point me to a bug report instead of your perception of what's optimal and not. Working is not necessary optimal, but your vision of optimal is not necessarily working either. tglx