Re: Fwd: [GIT PULL] timer changes for v3.10

[Ingo Molnar]

* Pavel Machek <pavel@xxxxxx> wrote:

> > Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
> > quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
> 
> I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
> 
> TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]

The TSC is just a 64-bit counter that can be read very cheaply.

If the TSC is _implemented_ precisely in hardware and is kept in sync over 
CPUs then it's obviously fit for long-term precise timekeeping from that 
point on.

> [...] I guess it may work ok for short naps, [...]

Historically the TSC was not very precise nor kept in sync, but see the 
measurements from Feng Tang, it's very precise now on good hardware - and 
it's also a very cheap to read clocksource.

> [...] but some people suspend their machines for longer than that. Plus 
> I wonder how it will interfere with /etc/adjtime.

If it's precise then why should it interfere?

The history of the TSC being problematic can be ignored the moment CPU 
makers fix it completely - and apparently that is happening...

Thanks,

	Ingo
--
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/