From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: discuss@x86-64.org
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai.lu@amd.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, Tobias Diedrich <ranma+kernel@tdiedrich.de>
Subject: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails.
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:14:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200701090014.42144.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070108223355.GI6167@stusta.de>
> We just got a completely different bug reported that was confirmed to be
> caused by Andi's patch:
> AMD64/ATI : timer is running twice as fast as it should [1]
I have such a machine that showed this problem and when I wrote the patch I
tested it on it (and on a couple of others of course). No twice as fast on
my testing.
In fact there are two types of ATI machines: ones that have a BIOS workaround
for the original Linux issue and ones that don't. Keeping both
happy is not easy.
So I'm somewhat dubious on that. Where is that report?
>
> My whole point is that for 2.6.20, we can live with simply reverting
> Andi's commit.
I agree. It's more problematical than I expected. Reverting is
the best option right now.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-08 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <5986589C150B2F49A46483AC44C7BCA490733F@ssvlexmb2.amd.com>
2007-01-03 6:23 ` 2.6.20-rc3: known unfixed regressions - x86_64 boot failure: "IO-APIC + timer doesn't work" Yinghai Lu
2007-01-08 0:55 ` Tobias Diedrich
2007-01-08 1:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-08 15:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86_64 io_apic: Implement remove_pin_to_irq Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 15:53 ` PATCH 2/4] x86_64 io_apic: Implement irq_from_pin Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 15:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86_64 io_apic: Implment update_irq0_entry Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 16:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 20:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-08 21:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 22:33 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-08 22:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-08 23:14 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2007-01-08 23:21 ` [discuss] " Adrian Bunk
2007-01-08 23:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-09 22:00 ` Tobias Diedrich
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=200701090014.42144.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ranma+kernel@tdiedrich.de \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=yinghai.lu@amd.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.