From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:28 -0500 Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]:1779 "EHLO e33.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Feb 2003 20:56:27 -0500 Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2003 17:57:46 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Andi Kleen , john stultz cc: lkml , Joel Becker Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.59_getcycles_A0 Message-ID: <516500000.1044669465@flay> In-Reply-To: <20030208015235.GA25432@wotan.suse.de> References: <1044649542.18673.20.camel@w-jstultz2.beaverton.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel> <1044659375.18676.80.camel@w-jstultz2.beaverton.ibm.com> <20030208001844.GA20849@wotan.suse.de> <1044665441.18670.106.camel@w-jstultz2.beaverton.ibm.com> <20030208015235.GA25432@wotan.suse.de> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.1.2 (Linux/x86) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> However this doesn't work on systems w/o a synced TSC, so by simply > > Why not? This shouldn't be performance critical and you can make > it monotonous with an additional variable + lock if backwards jumps > should be a problem. > > Also the variations between non synced TSCs should be far below > any watchdog's radar screen. Not true. They'll drift further and further apart over time. Even a 0.01% crystal difference will eventually kill you. And if that isn't bad enough think about what happens when I run 180 MHz processors in one node, and 900MHz in another. You really can't make any assumptions about TSC sync on boxes where they're not synced. M.