* Pavel Machek wrote:
> [I still wonder how adjtime is going to work in TSC(runtime)+RTC(s2disk)
> case; surely TSC has different drift than RTC, and so adjtime will have
> fun trying to estimate the drift... but that's not new problem and not
> affected by that patch.]
NTP, once it has
* Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
[I still wonder how adjtime is going to work in TSC(runtime)+RTC(s2disk)
case; surely TSC has different drift than RTC, and so adjtime will have
fun trying to estimate the drift... but that's not new problem and not
affected by that patch.]
NTP, once it
Hi!
> > > > [...] but some people suspend their machines for longer than that. Plus
> > > > I wonder how it will interfere with /etc/adjtime.
> > >
> > > If it's precise then why should it interfere?
> > >
> > > The history of the TSC being problematic can be ignored the moment CPU
> > >
Pavel,
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > > Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
> > > > quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
> > >
> > > I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
> > >
> > > TSC was not designed for long-term precise
Hi Pavel,
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:55:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
> Hi!
>
> > > > Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
> > > > quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
> > >
> > > I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
> > >
> > > TSC was not
Hi!
> > > Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
> > > quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
> >
> > I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
> >
> > TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]
>
> The TSC is just a 64-bit counter
* Pavel Machek wrote:
> > Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
> > quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
>
> I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
>
> TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]
The TSC is just a 64-bit counter
* Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz wrote:
Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]
The TSC is just a 64-bit
Hi!
Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]
The TSC is just a 64-bit counter that can be read
Hi Pavel,
On Wed, May 08, 2013 at 12:55:42PM +0200, Pavel Machek wrote:
Hi!
Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
TSC was not designed for long-term
Pavel,
On Wed, 8 May 2013, Pavel Machek wrote:
Sorry. You seem to not like the merged change, but I guess I'm not
quite sure what exactly your objection is here.
I'm not exactly sure what my objections are.
TSC was not designed for long-term precise timekeeping. [...]
Hi!
[...] but some people suspend their machines for longer than that. Plus
I wonder how it will interfere with /etc/adjtime.
If it's precise then why should it interfere?
The history of the TSC being problematic can be ignored the moment CPU
makers fix it completely -
Hi!
> >is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
> >lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
> >temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
> >TSC good enough?
> Yes, I think it is relatively precise.
On 05/07/2013 02:31 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2013-05-07 09:01:36, John Stultz wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Feng Tang wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
On Tue 2013-05-07 09:01:36, John Stultz wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Feng Tang wrote:
> >
> >>>is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
> >>>lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
> >>>temperature of CPU varies a
* John Stultz wrote:
> On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> >* Feng Tang wrote:
> >
> >>>is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
> >>>lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
> >>>temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and
On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Feng Tang wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
TSC good enough?
Yes, I
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 08:53:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>
> * Feng Tang wrote:
>
> > > is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
> > > lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
> > > temperature of CPU varies a lot between
* Feng Tang wrote:
> > is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
> > lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
> > temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
> > TSC good enough?
>
> Yes, I think it is relatively
* Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
TSC good enough?
Yes, I think it is
Hi Ingo,
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 08:53:48AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
temperature of CPU varies a lot
On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
TSC good
* John Stultz john.stu...@linaro.org wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
temperature of CPU varies a
On 05/07/2013 02:31 PM, Pavel Machek wrote:
On Tue 2013-05-07 09:01:36, John Stultz wrote:
On 05/06/2013 11:53 PM, Ingo Molnar wrote:
* Feng Tang feng.t...@intel.com wrote:
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for
Hi!
is even worse than that. Machine can stay is s2ram for weeks (for a
lot more if it is desktop and you do s2ram for powersaving). Also
temperature of CPU varies a lot between active and s2ram states. Is
TSC good enough?
Yes, I think it is relatively precise. Per our test, system time
Hi Pavel,
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:10:42AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Pavel Machek
> Date: 2013/5/7
> Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] timer changes for v3.10
> To: Ingo Molnar
> Cc: Linus Torvalds ,
> linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Thomas Gleixner , Peter
Hi Pavel,
On Tue, May 07, 2013 at 09:10:42AM +0800, Feng Tang wrote:
-- Forwarded message --
From: Pavel Machek pa...@ucw.cz
Date: 2013/5/7
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] timer changes for v3.10
To: Ingo Molnar mi...@kernel.org
Cc: Linus Torvalds torva...@linux-foundation.org,
27 matches
Mail list logo
