Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1030234AbXBFW4b (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:56:31 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1030238AbXBFW4b (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:56:31 -0500 Received: from mx2.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.151.9]:32932 "EHLO mx2.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1030234AbXBFW43 (ORCPT ); Tue, 6 Feb 2007 17:56:29 -0500 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2007 23:56:50 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: Daniel Walker Cc: Thomas Gleixner , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: 2.6.20-rc6-mm3 Message-ID: <20070206225650.GA14853@elte.hu> References: <1170793206.3785.16.camel@chaos> <1170794437.3455.20.camel@dwalker1> <20070206205231.GA25430@elte.hu> <1170795378.3455.31.camel@dwalker1> <20070206210959.GC25430@elte.hu> <1170796999.3455.43.camel@dwalker1> <20070206214131.GA1176@elte.hu> <1170798879.3455.58.camel@dwalker1> <20070206220855.GB5109@elte.hu> <1170801742.3455.87.camel@dwalker1> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1170801742.3455.87.camel@dwalker1> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -5.3 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-5.3 required=5.9 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.0.3 -3.3 ALL_TRUSTED Did not pass through any untrusted hosts -2.0 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1163 Lines: 30 * Daniel Walker wrote: > On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 23:08 +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote: > > > sorry but that's precisely what your suggestion above results in: > > I'm not trying to suggest we "fake" anything. Your just > misunderstanding me.. [...] as i pointed it out in the previous mail, the problem is that what you suggested results in preisely that - a count in the wrong place: > If we change the current "timer" entry to be listed as "lapic-timer" > and not "IO-APIC-edge" (or one of the other names) and replace it with > the count from LOC changing the current 'timer' entry (which is line 2 of /proc/interrupts) to be 'listed as lapic-timer' and to 'replace it with the count from LOC' is faking a count in a line where nothing like that should be. the kernel simply displays reality: IRQ#0 isnt increasing because it's not used, and LOC (local apic timers) is increasing. Ingo - 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/