From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756619AbXI3J6b (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:58:31 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1754744AbXI3J6X (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:58:23 -0400 Received: from ns.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:60387 "EHLO mx1.suse.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751069AbXI3J6W (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Sep 2007 05:58:22 -0400 From: Andi Kleen Organization: SUSE Linux Products GmbH, Nuernberg, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nuernberg) To: Linus Torvalds Subject: Re: [REGRESSION from 2.6.23-rc8] (was: Re: 2.6.23-rc4-mm1 and -rc6-mm1: boot failure on HP nx6325, related to clockevents) Date: Sun, 30 Sep 2007 11:58:17 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.9.6 Cc: Thomas Gleixner , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Andrew Morton , LKML , Ingo Molnar References: <200709231257.12213.rjw@sisk.pl> <1190842476.23376.57.camel@chaos> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200709301158.17823.ak@suse.de> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > > > OK, this explains 2) and 3). I just looked into the code and the logic > > vs. noapictimer on SMP is completely broken. noapictimer really doesn't make any sense on non SMP imho with the old timer architecture. That is why I never bothered to implement it. It's purely a UP hack. > ..and thanks for the explanation. > > Thanks for finding it so quickly guys. Sounds like this will be fixed > properly in 2.6.24 with the x86 merge (which hopefully brings in the hrt > patch too) There is nothing really to fix currently. Clockevents changes behaviour majorly (always using APIC timers without irq 0 backups[1]) and that causes problems that need new workarounds and new fixes (surprise surprise!) That merge would probably fix a few more such "Thomas doesn't understand the code" bugs I guess because he hacks much more on i386 than x86-64; but if the overall result will be really better is a totally different question. -Andi [1] Or let's call it "I trust all my time to the CPU" and no more southrbridge aka put all eggs in one basket. Given the trends in CPU power saving that is a quite dangerous strategy.