From: Andi Kleen <ak@suse.de>
To: discuss@x86-64.org
Cc: Adrian Bunk <bunk@stusta.de>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@osdl.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Yinghai Lu <yinghai.lu@amd.com>,
Linus Torvalds <torvalds@osdl.org>,
mingo@redhat.com, Tobias Diedrich <ranma+kernel@tdiedrich.de>
Subject: Re: [discuss] [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails.
Date: Tue, 9 Jan 2007 00:14:41 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <200701090014.42144.ak@suse.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20070108223355.GI6167@stusta.de>
> We just got a completely different bug reported that was confirmed to be
> caused by Andi's patch:
> AMD64/ATI : timer is running twice as fast as it should [1]
I have such a machine that showed this problem and when I wrote the patch I
tested it on it (and on a couple of others of course). No twice as fast on
my testing.
In fact there are two types of ATI machines: ones that have a BIOS workaround
for the original Linux issue and ones that don't. Keeping both
happy is not easy.
So I'm somewhat dubious on that. Where is that report?
>
> My whole point is that for 2.6.20, we can live with simply reverting
> Andi's commit.
I agree. It's more problematical than I expected. Reverting is
the best option right now.
-Andi
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2007-01-08 23:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 15+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <5986589C150B2F49A46483AC44C7BCA490733F@ssvlexmb2.amd.com>
2007-01-03 6:23 ` 2.6.20-rc3: known unfixed regressions - x86_64 boot failure: "IO-APIC + timer doesn't work" Yinghai Lu
2007-01-08 0:55 ` Tobias Diedrich
2007-01-08 1:09 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-08 15:49 ` [PATCH 1/4] x86_64 io_apic: Implement remove_pin_to_irq Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 15:53 ` PATCH 2/4] x86_64 io_apic: Implement irq_from_pin Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 15:56 ` [PATCH 3/4] x86_64 io_apic: Implment update_irq0_entry Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 16:11 ` [PATCH 4/4] x86_64 ioapic: Improve the heuristics for when check_timer fails Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 20:21 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-08 21:45 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-08 22:33 ` Adrian Bunk
2007-01-08 22:57 ` Linus Torvalds
2007-01-08 23:14 ` Andi Kleen [this message]
2007-01-08 23:21 ` [discuss] " Adrian Bunk
2007-01-08 23:18 ` Eric W. Biederman
2007-01-09 22:00 ` Tobias Diedrich
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=200701090014.42144.ak@suse.de \
--to=ak@suse.de \
--cc=akpm@osdl.org \
--cc=bunk@stusta.de \
--cc=discuss@x86-64.org \
--cc=ebiederm@xmission.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mingo@redhat.com \
--cc=ranma+kernel@tdiedrich.de \
--cc=torvalds@osdl.org \
--cc=yinghai.lu@amd.com \
/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