Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.34_vsyscall_A0

From: john stultz (
Date: Mon Oct 21 2002 - 12:15:57 EST

On Mon, 2002-10-21 at 06:18, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 2002-10-18 at 17:13, Stephen Hemminger wrote:
> > It would be great to rework the whole TSC time of day stuff to work with
> > per cpu data and allow unsychronized TSC's like NUMA. The problem is
> > that for fast user level access, there would need to be some way to find
> The timer isnt even necessarily constant rate. The tsc is a nice tool
> for debugging. Using it as a clock was not in the long run brilliant.
> Don't try and continue it further, we have ACPI and HPET and other
> better solutions in upcoming PC hardware.

Yes, I also feel all this per-cpu TSC stuff is not the way to go (on top
of all this per-cpu mapping, etc. you'd also have to round-robin the
timer interrupt so each cpu has a last_tsc_low value, then if cpus are
varying in freq you have to recalc that occasionally. it just gets
messy.). The current vsyscall implementation uses the TSC because on 99%
of the boxes out there, the TSC is in sync and works fine as time source
(ie: normal gettimeofday uses it). On boxes that don't use the TSC, the
vsyscall shouldn't be mapped in until we have an alternate HPET(equv)
vsyscall solution.

I'll see if I can clean that up later today. I also didn't mind Andrea's
suggestion for using a /proc entry to disable/check for vsyscalls, so I
might give that a whirl as well.

thanks for all the feedback, everyone!

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 23 2002 - 22:00:54 EST