Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 09:09:52 +0100
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
To: Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com>
Cc: H Peter Anvin <hpa@zytor.com>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
       linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] x86: Support always running TSC on Intel CPUs
Message-ID: <20081118080952.GE17838@elte.hu>
References: <20081118001137.GA12350@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20081118001137.GA12350@linux-os.sc.intel.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 915
Lines: 34


* Venki Pallipadi <venkatesh.pallipadi@intel.com> wrote:

> +	if (c->x86_power & (1 << 8)) {
>  		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC);
> +		set_cpu_cap(c, X86_FEATURE_NOSTOP_TSC);
> +	}

hm, the naming is a bit confusing. We now have 3 variants:

  X86_FEATURE_TSC
  X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_TSC
  X86_FEATURE_NOSTOP_TSC

NOSTOP_TSC is basically what CONSTANT_TSC should have been to begin 
with ;-)

i'd suggest to rename it to this:

  X86_FEATURE_TSC
  X86_FEATURE_CONSTANT_FREQ_TSC
  X86_FEATURE_STABLE_TSC

... with CONSTANT_FREQ_TSC not having any real role in the long run. 
(it's similarly problematic to a completely unstable TSC)

does this sound ok?

	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/