From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Joachim Deguara" Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] Allow all Opteron processors to change pstate at same time Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:32:12 +0200 Message-ID: <1152801132.4519.10.camel@lapdog.site> References: <20060713130604.GC8230@ucw.cz> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20060713130604.GC8230@ucw.cz> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Pavel Machek Cc: "shin, jacob" , Andi Kleen , "Langsdorf, Mark" , discuss@x86-64.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, cpufreq@lists.linux.org.uk On Thu, 2006-07-13 at 13:06 +0000, Pavel Machek wrote: > Can you run two such tests *in parallel*? That seemed to break it > really quickly. parallel sounds fun, but I don't get it. Two machine or trying to go online and offline at the same time? Firestorming two busy parallel while loops, one turning the core offline and the other online, did not bring an oops so I guess this kernel is in the clear in that regard. I can't get it to crash again and I am afraid that it crashed under an old devel kernel. After another ~20 hour test with heavy freq changes with the tscsync patch CPU 1: Syncing TSC to CPU 0. CPU 1: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff 4 cycles, maxerr 499 cycles) ... CPU 2: Syncing TSC to CPU 0. CPU 2: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff -105 cycles, maxerr 600 cycles) ... CPU 3: Syncing TSC to CPU 0. CPU 3: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff -122 cycles, maxerr 1126 cycles) after 5 hours of no PowerNow! CPU 1: Syncing TSC to CPU 0. CPU 1: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff -3 cycles, maxerr 598 cycles) ... CPU 2: Syncing TSC to CPU 0. CPU 2: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff -124 cycles, maxerr 1129 cycles) ... CPU 3: Syncing TSC to CPU 0. CPU 3: synchronized TSC with CPU 0 (last diff -124 cycles, maxerr 1127 cycles) huh?? I don't understand but it does not matter what I do or how long I do it, the difference looks to always be about the same. -joachim