Hi. Ingo Molnar wrote: > * nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx <nigel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>>>> Just out of curiosity, could you try the appended cumulative patch >>>>> and report .clock_warps, .clock_overflows and .clock_underflows as >>>>> you did. >>>> With those patches, CONFIG_NO_HZ works just fine. >> Could these patches also help with hibernation issues? I'm trying >> x86_64+NO_HZ, and seeing activity delayed during the atomic copy and >> afterwards until I manually generate interrupts (by pressing keys). > > i dont think that should be related to cpu_clock() use. Does the patch > below make any difference? (or could you try x86.git to get the whole > stack of x86 changes that we have at the moment.) Here's the coordinates > for x86.git: Sorry for the delay in replying. Something seems to help, but I haven't managed to identify what yet. I don't think it was the patch appended because I'm on UP. If you care, I'll see if I can find the time to look more carefully. Nigel - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrace" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
