Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:18:02 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:18:02 -0500 Received: from ns.suse.de ([213.95.15.193]:3590 "EHLO Cantor.suse.de") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Tue, 21 Jan 2003 18:18:01 -0500 To: john stultz Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.59_lost-tick_A0 References: <1043189962.15683.82.camel@w-jstultz2.beaverton.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> From: Andi Kleen Date: 22 Jan 2003 00:27:07 +0100 In-Reply-To: john stultz's message of "22 Jan 2003 00:08:23 +0100" Message-ID: Lines: 27 X-Mailer: Gnus v5.7/Emacs 20.6 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org john stultz writes: > All, > This patch addresses the following problem: Linux cannot properly > handle the case where interrupts are disabled for longer then two ticks. Comments: Basic idea is good. The x86-64 2.4 tree has a similar solution for the same problem. Especially with HZ=1000 this is really needed, because now lost ticks are far more common than with the HZ=100 in 2.4. I would consider some form of this patch as requirement for 2.6 release. what happens when 1000000 does not evenly divide HZ? I think some ports use HZ=1024 Why is the condition > and not >= ? Eactly two ticks offset is already one lost. In fact even >= 1.5*HZ would be dubious. I would like to have some statistics counter somewhere in /proc for lost ticks, so that it can be checked for after bug reports. Perhaps even printk for the first 5 or so. Could you please add spaces after /* and before */ -Andi - 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/