Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-06-05 Thread Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, dean gaudet wrote: > > the HPET specification allows for HPETs with *much* lower resolution than > 50us. in fact Fmin is 10Hz iirc. (sorry to jump in so late, but i'm > about a month behind on the list.) Well, for such a broken HPET, the right thing to do is to just not u

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-06-05 Thread dean gaudet
ugh... do not send email before breakfast. do not send email before breakfast. nevermind :) -dean On Tue, 5 Jun 2007, dean gaudet wrote: > the HPET specification allows for HPETs with *much* lower resolution than > 50us. in fact Fmin is 10Hz iirc. (sorry to jump in so late, but i'm > abou

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-06-05 Thread dean gaudet
the HPET specification allows for HPETs with *much* lower resolution than 50us. in fact Fmin is 10Hz iirc. (sorry to jump in so late, but i'm about a month behind on the list.) -dean On Mon, 21 May 2007, Chris Wright wrote: > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 14:57 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:58:55 +0200 > Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The warning in the NOHZ code, which triggers when a CPU goes idle with > > softirqs pending can fill up the logs quite quickly. Rate limit the > > output

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Andrew Morton
On Mon, 21 May 2007 21:58:55 +0200 Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The warning in the NOHZ code, which triggers when a CPU goes idle with > softirqs pending can fill up the logs quite quickly. Rate limit the > output until we found the root cause of that problem. > > Signed-off-by: T

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Chris Wright
* Thomas Gleixner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > What happened to the maxcpus=1 hard lock prevention patch ? i placed it in the queue for .3. (primarily due to timing and since it hadn't hit upstream yet). - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a me

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 13:33 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * Thomas Gleixner ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > What happened to the maxcpus=1 hard lock prevention patch ? > > i placed it in the queue for .3. (primarily due to timing and since it > hadn't hit upstream yet). Fair enough. tglx

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 21:58 +0200, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > Dunno. There is another one missing: What happened to the maxcpus=1 hard lock prevention patch ? tglx - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More

Re: [patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Thomas Gleixner
On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 12:16 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > plain text document attachment > (i386-hpet-check-if-the-counter-works.patch) > -stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. > - > > From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Some systems

[patch 43/69] i386: HPET, check if the counter works

2007-05-21 Thread Chris Wright
-stable review patch. If anyone has any objections, please let us know. - From: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Some systems have a HPET which is not incrementing, which leads to a complete hang. Detect it during HPET setup. Signed-off-by: Thomas Gleixner <[EMAIL PROTECT