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
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
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
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
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
* 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
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
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
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
-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
10 matches
Mail list logo