From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Christian Hoelbling Subject: [PATCH] 2.6.5 speedstep on P4Ms Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2004 00:30:03 +0000 Sender: cpufreq-bounces@www.linux.org.uk Message-ID: <40C8FD0B.4050108@cern.ch> Reply-To: holbling@cpt.univ-mrs.fr Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: cpufreq-bounces+glkc-cpufreq=gmane.org@www.linux.org.uk Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: cpufreq@www.linux.org.uk > > >>/ i also wonder about one thing, maybe you can help me on that. with the >/>/ old speedstep driver, i would have occational hard freezups of my >/>/ machine. this seems to be gone (just experimental evidence, since i >/>/ didn't have one in a few days now where before they occured about >/>/ hourly). so my guess is that something in this patch must have corrected >/>/ it. since my machine just has one physical cpu, i really don't >/>/ understand what went wrong before. do you have any idea on that? >/>/ >/ >IMHO the lockup is due to the fact we use local_irq_disable() but it >should be done more globally. I believe you may still have some lockup >still. > > i didn't, but that might be pure chance. :-) so does one have to disable the interrupts on both siblings of a HT CPU seperately? i just don't know how this works. thanks, chris