Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S937173AbWLDTTa (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:19:30 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S937316AbWLDTTa (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:19:30 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:43221 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S937173AbWLDTT2 (ORCPT ); Mon, 4 Dec 2006 14:19:28 -0500 Subject: Re: PMTMR running too fast From: john stultz To: Ian Campbell Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Andi Kleen In-Reply-To: <1165153834.5499.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1165153834.5499.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 11:19:22 -0800 Message-Id: <1165259962.6152.5.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.8.1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1707 Lines: 40 On Sun, 2006-12-03 at 13:50 +0000, Ian Campbell wrote: > In older kernels arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_pm.c:verify_pmtmr_rate > contained a check for sensible PMTMR rate and disabled that clocksource > if it was found to be out of spec[0]. This check seems to have been lost > in the transition to drivers/clocksource/acpi_pm.c, the removal is in > 61743fe445213b87fb55a389c8d073785323ca3e "Time: i386 Conversion - part > 4: Remove Old timer_opts Code"[1] and the check is not present in the > replacement 5d0cf410e94b1f1ff852c3f210d22cc6c5a27ffa "Time: i386 > Clocksource Drivers"[2]. Fedora has a bug covering this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211902 > Is there a specific reason the check was removed (I couldn't see on in > the archives) or was it simply overlooked? Without it I need to pass > clocksource=tsc to have 2.6.18 work correctly on an older K6 system with > an Aladdin chipset (will dig out the precise details if required). Would > a patch to reintroduce the check be acceptable or would some sort of > blacklist based solution be more acceptable? If I recall correctly, it was pulled because there was some question as to if it was actually needed (x86_64 didn't need it) and it slows down the boot time (although not by much). I'm fine just re-adding it. Although if the number of affected systems are small we could just blacklist it (Ian, mind sending dmidecode output?). Andi, your thoughts? 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/