From: "Ray Bryant" <raybry@mpdtxmail.amd.com>
To: "Daniel Jacobowitz" <dan@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [discuss] Re: [PATCH] x86-64: Fix bad assumption that
 dualcore cpus have synced TSCs
Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 10:15:08 -0500
User-Agent: KMail/1.8
cc: "john stultz" <johnstul@us.ibm.com>, "Andi Kleen" <ak@suse.de>,
       "Andrew Morton" <akpm@osdl.org>, "lkml" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
       discuss@x86-64.org
References: <1127157404.3455.209.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
 <1127242785.11080.20.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com>
 <20050921040342.GA7175@nevyn.them.org>
In-Reply-To: <20050921040342.GA7175@nevyn.them.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <200509211015.09356.raybry@mpdtxmail.amd.com>
Content-Type: text/plain;
 charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 967
Lines: 25

On Tuesday 20 September 2005 23:03, Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:

>
> FYI, at least I have reproduced this without powernow loaded.

There are cases that we are aware of where the TSC will count slower while the 
processor is halted.    This can make TSC's get out of sync on dual cores.

I wonder if you can reproduce this problem while also running a pair of cpu 
bound tasks on your dual core box.   If you can't, then this is the culprit.

In general, however, on multisocket systems, you can't depend on TSC's being 
synchronized between sockets, so all of this is moot.   We just have to deal 
with it. 

-- 
Ray Bryant
AMD Performance Labs                   Austin, Tx
512-602-0038 (o)                 512-507-7807 (c)

-
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/