On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:12:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> > The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> > first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> > can be any
On Tue, Jul 29, 2014 at 02:12:37PM +0200, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> can be any online CPU in most configs.
>
> Full dynticks has its own requirement
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 07:37:33PM +0200, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
Full dynticks has its own requirement though
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the timekeeper
to always be 0. And this requirement seem to
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the timekeeper
to always be 0. And this requirement seem to
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> > first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> > can be any online CPU in most
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 02:46:56PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> People think all sorts of things. And it becomes very irritating when
> thoughtful assumptions get burned into ROM for example. We should be
> able to do better in the kernel.
Agreed. There used to be an x86 subarch where the
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> >
> > > The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> > > first clockevent device is setup. This works well
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
>
> > The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> > first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> > can be any online CPU in most
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
> The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
> first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
> can be any online CPU in most configs.
>
> Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 02:46:56PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
People think all sorts of things. And it becomes very irritating when
thoughtful assumptions get burned into ROM for example. We should be
able to do better in the kernel.
Agreed. There used to be an x86 subarch where the boot
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 01:31:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
On Sat, 19 Jul 2014, Frederic Weisbecker wrote:
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the timekeeper
to always be 0. And this requirement seem to
The timekeeper gets initialized to the value of the CPU where the
first clockevent device is setup. This works well because the timekeeper
can be any online CPU in most configs.
Full dynticks has its own requirement though and needs the timekeeper
to always be 0. And this requirement seem to
18 matches
Mail list logo
