On Thu, Apr 24, 2008 at 11:27:37AM +0200, Johannes Berg wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 02:24 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> > From: Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:21:52 +0200
> >
> > > Hmm. Why is that whole cpu_clock stuff in place anyway? powerpc has
> > > perfectl
On Thu, 2008-04-24 at 02:24 -0700, David Miller wrote:
> From: Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:21:52 +0200
>
> > Hmm. Why is that whole cpu_clock stuff in place anyway? powerpc has
> > perfectly synchronised time across processors with dirt cheap access to
> > it as w
From: Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2008 11:21:52 +0200
> Hmm. Why is that whole cpu_clock stuff in place anyway? powerpc has
> perfectly synchronised time across processors with dirt cheap access to
> it as well, so why build all this code that only messes it up on top of
>
> > [2.764009 (3/3)]
> > [4.272241 (2/2)]
> > [4.272322 (2/2)]
> > [4.272375 (2/2)]
> > [2.948002 (3/3)]
> >
> > As you can see, I added printk_cpu and smp_processor_id() to the
> > printk timestamp output and thus it is obvious that the different
> > times come from differe
* Johannes Berg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > > Not sure whether the lockdep patches or something else is causing this
> > > as I haven't checked w/o the patches yet, but I seem to be having some
> > > confusion of printk timestamps:
> >
> > Tried reverting the patches ?
>
> That didn
Hi,
> > Not sure whether the lockdep patches or something else is causing this
> > as I haven't checked w/o the patches yet, but I seem to be having some
> > confusion of printk timestamps:
>
> Tried reverting the patches ?
That didn't help, so it's not the lockdep patches causing it. I'm still
