Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030270AbWBEFG3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Feb 2006 00:06:29 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030273AbWBEFG3 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Feb 2006 00:06:29 -0500 Received: from smtp.bulldogdsl.com ([212.158.248.7]:64272 "EHLO mcr-smtp-001.bulldogdsl.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030270AbWBEFG2 (ORCPT ); Sun, 5 Feb 2006 00:06:28 -0500 X-Spam-Abuse: Please report all spam/abuse matters to abuse@bulldogdsl.com From: Alistair John Strachan To: Albert Cahalan Subject: Re: athlon 64 dual core tsc out of sync Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2006 05:06:28 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.9 Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, rlrevell@joe-job.com, safemode@comcast.net References: <787b0d920602041224p660911b5mc4d639581736e96f@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <787b0d920602041224p660911b5mc4d639581736e96f@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200602050506.28108.s0348365@sms.ed.ac.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2144 Lines: 48 On Saturday 04 February 2006 20:24, Albert Cahalan wrote: > Alistair John Strachan writes: > > On Saturday 04 February 2006 19:03, Lee Revell wrote: > >> On Fri, 2006-02-03 at 21:10 -0500, Ed Sweetman wrote: > >>> I know this has been gone over before, and I am aware of > >>> the possible fix being the use of the pmtmr. > >>> > >>> My question is, if there is support builtin to the kernel for more than > >>> one timer, and we know that no timer but the pmtimer is reliable on a > >>> dual core system, why doesn't the startup of the kernel choose the > >>> pmtimer based on if it detects the system is a dual core proc with smp > >>> enabled? And if the pmtimer doesn't fix this sync issue, is there a > >>> fix out there? Currently with 2.6.16-rc1-mm5 the non-customized boot > >>> args to the kernel results in these messages. > >> > >> Excellent question. What's the status of this bug? It's a > >> showstopper for a ton of people on the JACK list... > > > > As Andi has recounted many times already, pmtmr is now the > > default on x86-64 if it's built in. I'm sure you can confirm > > this from the sources. > > That's unhelpful unless you are suggesting that Linux no > longer supports running the 32-bit kernel on 64-bit hardware. > If that is the case, it ought to detect the incompatibility > and refuse to boot. To be fair, the original poster made no indication that he wasn't running a 64bit kernel. It's obvious from subsequent posts that he isn't. While I agree pmtmr is sensible on the X2, unlike on x86-64, x86 supports the clock= option for overriding the default. It's really only installing new distros that might be problematic (in which case maybe they can patch the kernel to use pmtmr?). -- Cheers, Alistair. 'No sense being pessimistic, it probably wouldn't work anyway.' Third year Computer Science undergraduate. 1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK. - 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/