Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 18 Feb 2002 11:04:22 -0800 | From | george anzinger <> | Subject | Re: Missed jiffies |
| |
"H. Peter Anvin" wrote: > > Followup to: <3C6E833F.1A888B3C@mvista.com> > By author: george anzinger <george@mvista.com> > In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel > > > > One of the nasty problems, especially with machines such as yours (i.e. > > lap tops), is the fact that TSC is NOT clocked at a fixed rate. It is > > affected by throttling (reduced in 12.5% increments) and by power > > management. > > If the TSC is affected by HLT, throttling, or C2 power management, the > TSC is broken (as it is on Cyrix chips, for example.) The TSC usually > *is* affected by C3 power management, but the OS should be aware of > C3. > > -hpa Gosh I would LIKE to think this is true. Could you give a reference? I believe Andrew Grover thinks that what I have stated is true. If I am wrong, it will make the high-res-timers MUCH more acceptable as the TSC overhead is MUCH lower that the ACPI pm timer.
Do I have this right Andrew? -- George george@mvista.com High-res-timers: http://sourceforge.net/projects/high-res-timers/ Real time sched: http://sourceforge.net/projects/rtsched/ - 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/
| |