Re: [PATCH] Allow Intel platforms to declare unsynchronized TSC to kernel

[Andi Kleen]

Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> (2010/03/29 16:46), Andi Kleen wrote:
>> Andi Kleen <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>> 
>>> Allow Intel platforms to declare unsynchronized TSC to kernel
>>>
>>> [This came out of a private discussion with Linus last week]
>> 
>> Ping?  Please review this patch.
>> 
>> -Andi
>
> Does "constant" implicitly means "synchronized"?

Yes it does for the CPUID bit.

> Following commit tells us that there could be
> "constant-but-unsynchronized TSC":
>  6c56ccecf05fafe100ab4ea94f6fccbf5ff00db7
>> So, reenable TSC sync test even on constant and non-stop TSC systems.

First the platform is supposed to clear in this case and when it
doesn't the later check catches it anyways.

BTW all the things you're mentioning are not actually changed by my
patch. In this regard it behaves the same as before. I don't think
the patch description has to describe things it does not change
or be a general tutorial on TSCs.

-Andi

-- 
ak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx -- Speaking for myself only.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/