On Mon, 2008-08-25 at 11:22 -0700, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 19:57:12 +0200 > Ingo Molnar <mingo@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > * Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > hm, that too is due to the tsc.c unification - Alok Cc:-ed. > > > > Applied your fix to x86/urgent. > > > > > > ACKed-by: Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Good catch Peter. I'm puzzled how that bug was latent on 64bit for > > > so long with no-one realising though. > > > > i think it's the combination of these two factors: > > > > - bootup frequently is typically full-speed, so we calibrate things > > right > > > > - cpufreq events are relatively slow-scale - and when they trigger > > the system is definitely not under load. So how precisely the > > scheduler functions isnt all that important in such scenarios - > > there's tons of CPU power available. > > > > - many many of the 64 bit capable cpus are constant-tsc anyway Ironically I noticed it first on 64bit ;-) -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
