From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: Parag Warudkar <kernel-stuff@comcast.net>
Cc: Nishanth Aravamudan <nacc@us.ibm.com>, Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>,
George Anzinger <george@mvista.com>,
albert@users.sourceforge.net,
Ulrich Windl <ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de>,
Christoph Lameter <clameter@sgi.com>,
Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.de>,
David Mosberger <davidm@hpl.hp.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
paulus@samba.org, schwidefsky@de.ibm.com,
keith maanthey <kmannth@us.ibm.com>,
Chris McDermott <lcm@us.ibm.com>, Max Asbock <masbock@us.ibm.com>,
mahuja@us.ibm.com, Darren Hart <darren@dvhart.com>,
"Darrick J. Wong" <djwong@us.ibm.com>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
donf@us.ibm.com, mpm@selenic.com, benh@kernel.crashing.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] new timeofday x86-64 arch specific changes (v. B1)
Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2005 08:24:35 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1117812275.3674.2.camel@leatherman> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200506021950.35014.kernel-stuff@comcast.net>
On Thu, 2005-06-02 at 19:50 -0400, Parag Warudkar wrote:
> On Thursday 02 June 2005 19:20, john stultz wrote:
> > Could you see if the slowness you're feeling is correlated to the
> > acpi_pm timesource?
>
> Speaking of which, the below code from arch/i386/timer_pm.c looks particularly
> more taxing to me - 3 times read from ioport in a loop - not sure how many
> time that executes.
>
> static inline u32 read_pmtmr(void)
> {
> u32 v1=0,v2=0,v3=0;
> /* It has been reported that because of various broken
> * chipsets (ICH4, PIIX4 and PIIX4E) where the ACPI PM time
> * source is not latched, so you must read it multiple
> * times to insure a safe value is read.
> */
> do {
> v1 = inl(pmtmr_ioport);
> v2 = inl(pmtmr_ioport);
> v3 = inl(pmtmr_ioport);
> } while ((v1 > v2 && v1 < v3) || (v2 > v3 && v2 < v1)
> || (v3 > v1 && v3 < v2));
>
> Shouldn't that loop be limited to the broken chipsets - why would correct
> people with correctly working chipsets carry this extra burden? (Or is it
> insignificant?)
Yea, that would be nice to only do the triple read on the affected
systems. Although outside of the comment I don't have any real data as
to which system suffer from the issue. I'd have to defer to Dominik on
this one.
thanks
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-06-03 15:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 42+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-06-02 18:27 [PATCH 3/4] new timeofday x86-64 arch specific changes (v. B1) Parag Warudkar
2005-06-02 18:39 ` Nishanth Aravamudan
2005-06-02 23:05 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-02 23:20 ` john stultz
2005-06-02 23:33 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-02 23:50 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-03 7:05 ` Ulrich Windl
2005-06-03 15:24 ` john stultz [this message]
2005-06-05 17:05 ` Dominik Brodowski
2005-06-06 3:04 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-06 3:14 ` Dominik Brodowski
2005-06-10 0:48 ` George Anzinger
2005-06-06 9:21 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-06 9:24 ` Dominik Brodowski
2005-06-06 9:30 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-06 13:32 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2005-06-06 22:53 ` john stultz
2005-06-03 16:30 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-03 18:27 ` john stultz
2005-06-03 19:02 ` Christoph Lameter
2005-06-03 19:21 ` john stultz
2005-06-05 11:27 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-06 22:51 ` john stultz
2005-06-04 18:40 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-05 11:28 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-05 14:15 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-05 20:51 ` Lee Revell
2005-06-05 21:41 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-05 22:13 ` Lee Revell
2005-06-06 9:29 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-06 11:46 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-08 13:51 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-09 1:47 ` Lee Revell
2005-06-09 2:12 ` john stultz
2005-06-09 2:42 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-09 14:17 ` Andi Kleen
2005-06-03 13:32 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-02 18:40 ` john stultz
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-06-02 18:51 Parag Warudkar
2005-06-01 23:09 [PATCH 1/4] new timeofday core subsystem " john stultz
2005-06-01 23:12 ` [PATCH 2/4] new timeofday i386 arch specific changes " john stultz
2005-06-01 23:13 ` [PATCH 3/4] new timeofday x86-64 " john stultz
2005-06-02 0:37 ` Parag Warudkar
2005-06-02 17:34 ` john stultz
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=1117812275.3674.2.camel@leatherman \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=albert@users.sourceforge.net \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=clameter@sgi.com \
--cc=darren@dvhart.com \
--cc=davidm@hpl.hp.com \
--cc=djwong@us.ibm.com \
--cc=donf@us.ibm.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=kernel-stuff@comcast.net \
--cc=kmannth@us.ibm.com \
--cc=lcm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@dominikbrodowski.de \
--cc=mahuja@us.ibm.com \
--cc=masbock@us.ibm.com \
--cc=mpm@selenic.com \
--cc=nacc@us.ibm.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
--cc=schwidefsky@de.ibm.com \
--cc=tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de \
--cc=ulrich.windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox