Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261982AbVASXw2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:52:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261988AbVASXu2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:50:28 -0500 Received: from e34.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.132]:43004 "EHLO e34.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261982AbVASXpl (ORCPT ); Wed, 19 Jan 2005 18:45:41 -0500 Subject: Re: [PATCH] dynamic tick patch From: john stultz To: tglx@linutronix.de Cc: George Anzinger , Andrea Arcangeli , Tony Lindgren , Pavel Machek , Zwane Mwaikambo , Con Kolivas , Martin Schwidefsky , LKML In-Reply-To: <1106177171.16877.274.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> References: <20050119000556.GB14749@atomide.com> <20050119094342.GB25623@elf.ucw.cz> <20050119171323.GB14545@atomide.com> <20050119174858.GB12647@dualathlon.random> <41EEE648.2010309@mvista.com> <1106177171.16877.274.camel@tglx.tec.linutronix.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2005 15:45:29 -0800 Message-Id: <1106178329.21490.19.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.0.2 (2.0.2-3) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1437 Lines: 34 On Thu, 2005-01-20 at 00:26 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 14:59 -0800, George Anzinger wrote: > > I don't think you will ever get good time if you EVER reprogramm the PIT. > > Why not ? If you have a continous time source, which keeps track of > "ticks" regardless the CPU state, why should PIT reprogramming be evil ? That's a big if. The problem is that while the PIT has its problems (such as lost ticks), it runs at a known frequency and is reasonably accurate. Time sources like the TSC have the problem that it doesn't run at a known frequency, and thus we have to calibrate it (usually using the PIT). Unfortunately this calibration is not extremely accurate (George can go on to the reasons why), which causes the TSC to be a poor stand alone time source. That said, the PIT is a poor time source as well, as it does loose ticks and is very slow to access. ACPI PM and HPET are better as they don't have the lost tick problem, but they are still off chip and slower to access then the TSC. For an example of your ideal continuous timesource, check out the timebase on PPC/PPC64. Other arches also have similar well behaved time hardware. thanks -john - 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/