Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:50:07 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:50:07 -0500 Received: from pc1-cwma1-5-cust42.swa.cable.ntl.com ([80.5.120.42]:64152 "EHLO irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 6 Nov 2002 10:50:06 -0500 Subject: Re: Voyager subarchitecture for 2.5.46 From: Alan Cox To: Linus Torvalds Cc: "J.E.J. Bottomley" , john stultz , lkml In-Reply-To: References: Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 06 Nov 2002 16:19:09 +0000 Message-Id: <1036599549.9803.49.camel@irongate.swansea.linux.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 966 Lines: 19 On Wed, 2002-11-06 at 15:45, Linus Torvalds wrote: > It's clearly stupid in the long run to depend on the TSC synchronization. > We should consider different CPU's to be different clock-domains, and just > synchronize them using the primitives we already have (hey, people can use > ntp to synchronize over networks quite well, and that's without the kind > of synchronization primitives that we have within the same box). NTP synchronization assumes the clock runs at approximately the same speed and that you can 'bend' ticklength to avoid backward steps. Thats a really cool idea for the x440 but I wonder how practical it is when we have CPU's that keep changing speeds and not always notifying us about it either. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/