From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264920AbTLTQhQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:37:16 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264913AbTLTQhQ (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:37:16 -0500 Received: from mx1.elte.hu ([157.181.1.137]:48051 "EHLO mx1.elte.hu") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S263840AbTLTQhO (ORCPT ); Sat, 20 Dec 2003 11:37:14 -0500 Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2003 17:36:28 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Nick Piggin Cc: Andrew Morton , hawkes@babylon.engr.sgi.com, linux-ia64@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, johnstul@us.ibm.com Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] 2.6.0-test11 sched_clock() broken for "drifty ITC" Message-ID: <20031220163628.GA27842@elte.hu> References: <200312182044.hBIKiCLY5477429@babylon.engr.sgi.com> <20031220105031.GA17848@elte.hu> <3FE46345.1040102@cyberone.com.au> <20031220070532.05b7b268.akpm@osdl.org> <3FE466ED.5060701@cyberone.com.au> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3FE466ED.5060701@cyberone.com.au> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i X-ELTE-SpamVersion: SpamAssassin ELTE 1.0 X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-4.9, required 5.9, BAYES_00 -4.90 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamScore: -4 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org * Nick Piggin wrote: > I'm just thinking that computers with unsynched clocks have less need > for good interactivity, but thats probably too narrow and x86 a view > anyway. it's also a matter of predictable behavior. The scheduler should not behave differently just because there's no synchronized clock. Behavioral forks like that tend to come back and cause trouble later. Ingo