From: Daniel Jacobowitz <dan@debian.org>
To: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Cc: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>, Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
discuss@x86-64.org
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 00:03:42 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20050921040342.GA7175@nevyn.them.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1127242785.11080.20.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:59:45AM -0700, john stultz wrote:
> So, bugzilla.kernel.org has (temporarily at least) lost the reports from
> yesterday, but from the email i got, folks using my TSC consistency
> check that I posted were seeing what appears to be unsynched TSCs on
> dualcore AMD systems.
>
> Personally I suspect that the powernow driver is putting the cores
> independently into low power sleep and the TSCs are being independently
> halted, causing them to become unsynchronized.
>
> Do you still feel there is some other issue here? Any ideas for shaking
> out whatever else might in play?
FYI, at least I have reproduced this without powernow loaded.
--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery, LLC
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2005-09-21 4:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2005-09-19 19:16 [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs john stultz
2005-09-19 19:31 ` Andi Kleen
2005-09-19 19:42 ` john stultz
2005-09-19 19:49 ` [discuss] " Andi Kleen
2005-09-20 18:59 ` john stultz
2005-09-21 4:03 ` Daniel Jacobowitz [this message]
2005-09-21 15:15 ` Ray Bryant
2005-09-21 15:04 ` Andi Kleen
2005-09-21 15:46 ` Ray Bryant
2005-09-22 8:00 ` Jonas Oreland
2005-09-21 20:17 ` Andrew Morton
2005-10-07 12:26 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-07 12:31 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-07 14:15 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-07 14:21 ` [discuss] " Velu Erwan
2005-10-08 10:11 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-10 18:03 ` john stultz
2005-10-10 18:12 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-10 18:19 ` Jonas Oreland
2005-10-11 7:35 ` Vladimir B. Savkin
2005-10-11 8:06 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-11 16:27 ` Jonas Oreland
2005-10-25 7:35 ` x86-64: Syncing dualcore cpus TSCs Jonas Oreland
2005-10-25 7:42 ` Andi Kleen
2005-10-26 0:05 ` David Lang
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2005-09-20 19:13 [discuss] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that dualcore cpus have synced TSCs Langsdorf, Mark
2005-09-20 19:24 ` Scott Lampert
2005-09-20 19:30 ` 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=20050921040342.GA7175@nevyn.them.org \
--to=dan@debian.org \
--cc=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/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