Re: [patch] prefer TSC over PM Timer

From: john stultz
Date: Tue Nov 16 2004 - 04:55:46 EST


On Mon, 2004-11-15 at 19:21 -0800, dean gaudet wrote:
> On Mon, 15 Nov 2004, john stultz wrote:
> > With your patch, ACPI PM would never be selected (as TSC always wins
> > when available, and it will be available on all ACPI enabled i386
> > systems). So its just the same as disabling CONFIG_X86_PM_TIMER, so why
> > not just do that?
>
> my patch lets you use "clock=pmtmr" if you want it.

Yea, but at that point you have to enable it in the config and then pass
a boot parameter to use it. I dunno. If you want to go with that you
should def include a comment in the pmtmr code as well as in the config
help.

> > Do note, using the "clock=tsc" boot option, you can easily force the
> > system to use the TSC.
>
> right -- except i think the default is the opposite of what it should be
> for a generic kernel. i think more systems are served better by using tsc
> than those that need clock=pm... NUMA systems are rare (with custom
> kernels/etc), and if my experience with the centrino is valid then newer
> laptops aren't having this tsc/cpufreq problem.
>
> > I would however, support a patch that selected the TSC over the ACPI PM
> > time source when CONFIG_CPUFREQ and CONFIG_SMP were N. That's fairly
> > safe.
>
> i'm looking for a solution that generic distribution kernels can use...
>
> honestly my selfish motivation is to get efficeon/crusoe treated properly
> -- they support a fixed TSC rate which does not vary with frequency (which
> many people fault us for, but the reality is that fixed TSC is the only
> viable solution for a processor which can vary power consumption without
> the involvement of the kernel).

Yea, I just wish we could get away from the TSC and have a well defined
and hardware guaranteed timebase register like PPC.

> i'd advocate a patch like the one
> below... but it feels wrong.

Yea, no, I definitely don't like that. I know how these tricks work,
send out a worse patch to make the first look better ;) But alas, you've
worn me down! Add the comments I mentioned above and I'd go along with
it.

Dominik: are you cool with this?

thanks
-john

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/