Re: Regression in 2.6.27 caused by commit bfc0f59

[Thomas Gleixner]

On Tue, 2 Sep 2008, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> 
> You're definitely right that this could easily be the _real_ problem. 
> Especially as your TSC min value of 2160 is (a) pretty close to the 
> expected time of a microsecond and (b) so stable that I actually do not 
> believe that the PIT itself is at all emulated or the problem.

On that box, the PIT is probably real hardware or a damned good
emulation. When you look at the 10 loop values you see that it does
50% perfectly fine calibration loops. The others are just SMI
interruptions caused by random unknown crap in the BIOS.
 
> Btw - as to caring about the average value: that's pointless. If you only 
> look at the average time the PIT read takes place, then it is going to 
> approximate that "pit_count" thing in the end that I already did. 
> 
> Why? Because the average value should essentially end up being "(end_tsc - 
> start_tsc) / pit_count". And if you just compare that to "min_tsc", then 
> that should always be about a microsecond (on normal machines where the 
> PIT is essentially on the old emulated internal "ISA" bus on the 
> southbridge). So you end up with what I already posted, and you already 
> dismissed.
> 
> So average TSC is not any more interesting than "pit_count". 

Yeah, you're right. Math is hard :)

Thanks,

	tglx
--
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/