From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: nigel@suspend2.net Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 22:54:50 +0000 Subject: Re: CONFIG_NO_HZ breaks blktrace timestamps Message-Id: <478A96BA.3040503@suspend2.net> List-Id: References: <1199918912.8388.13.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov> <1199996752.9159.46.camel@lap75545.ornl.gov> <20080110234438.4826f658@inria.fr> <1200020661.5099.3.camel@obelisk.thedillows.org> <20080111090723.GI6258@kernel.dk> <478736C6.3080802@suspend2.net> <20080111093211.GC8143@elte.hu> In-Reply-To: <20080111093211.GC8143@elte.hu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: Ingo Molnar Cc: Jens Axboe , David Dillow , Guillaume Chazarain , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-btrace@vger.kernel.org, mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de Hi. Ingo Molnar wrote: > * nigel@suspend2.net wrote: > >>>>> Just out of curiosity, could you try the appended cumulative patch >>>>> and report .clock_warps, .clock_overflows and .clock_underflows as >>>>> you did. >>>> With those patches, CONFIG_NO_HZ works just fine. >> Could these patches also help with hibernation issues? I'm trying >> x86_64+NO_HZ, and seeing activity delayed during the atomic copy and >> afterwards until I manually generate interrupts (by pressing keys). > > i dont think that should be related to cpu_clock() use. Does the patch > below make any difference? (or could you try x86.git to get the whole > stack of x86 changes that we have at the moment.) Here's the coordinates > for x86.git: Sorry for the delay in replying. Something seems to help, but I haven't managed to identify what yet. I don't think it was the patch appended because I'm on UP. If you care, I'll see if I can find the time to look more carefully. Nigel