Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755161AbZCEIoU (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:44:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752711AbZCEIoL (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:44:11 -0500 Received: from mx3.mail.elte.hu ([157.181.1.138]:54324 "EHLO mx3.mail.elte.hu" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752681AbZCEIoK (ORCPT ); Thu, 5 Mar 2009 03:44:10 -0500 Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 09:43:38 +0100 From: Ingo Molnar To: john stultz Cc: Jesper Krogh , Thomas Gleixner , Linus Torvalds , Linux Kernel Mailing List , Len Brown Subject: Re: Linux 2.6.29-rc6 Message-ID: <20090305084338.GA16026@elte.hu> References: <1236029277.7756.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> <49ACC853.8070205@krogh.cc> <1236110026.6068.18.camel@localhost> <49AD90E2.7050209@krogh.cc> <1236118969.6068.87.camel@localhost> <49AE9EA4.2080500@krogh.cc> <49AECA3B.5030503@krogh.cc> <1236193075.3793.63.camel@jstultz-laptop> <1236220759.6863.7.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1236221530.6863.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1236221530.6863.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-ELTE-VirusStatus: clean X-ELTE-SpamScore: -1.5 X-ELTE-SpamLevel: X-ELTE-SpamCheck: no X-ELTE-SpamVersion: ELTE 2.0 X-ELTE-SpamCheck-Details: score=-1.5 required=5.9 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=no SpamAssassin version=3.2.3 -1.5 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayesian spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 955 Lines: 25 * john stultz wrote: > > Ingo, Thomas: On the hardware I'm testing the fast-pit > > calibration only triggers probably 80-90% of the time. About > > 10-20% of the time, the initial check to > > pit_expect_msb(0xff) fails (count=0), so we may need to look > > more at this approach. We definitely need to improve calibration quality. The question is - why does fast-calibration fail 10-20% of the time on your test-system? Also, why exactly do we miscalibrate? Could you please have a look at that? One theory would be that the PIT readout is unreliable. Windows does not make use of it, so it's not the most tested aspect of the PIT. Is that what happens on your box? 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/