Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > In message <45E5D760.4030409_at_root.org>, Nate Lawson writes: >> Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >> It's a valid question, but mostly irrelevant. > > Not at all. It may be a lot cheaper for us to just use the > value from the ACPI than to calibrate. Only in the increasingly > rare case where TSC is used for timecounter AND the system isn't > using NTP is the precise frequency really interesting. > Ah, that's something different. I don't think it's a good idea to use the provided value outright when something more empirical is available. With cpufreq modes like p4tcc or acpi_throttling, you only have a relative setting anyway (i.e. 50%) so you still have to measure the base freq at some point. Boot is a good place to do it. Ultimately, my goal is to re-calibrate (with intr on) each level the first time it's used, then cache it in cpufreq as the "real" freq. It will provide that value in the cf_level struct and then eventhandler consumers can use that. That value will be accurate and empirical. For now, the goal is to just get TSC matching reality a little better (say +/- 1% instead of +100% or so). -- NateReceived on Thu Mar 01 2007 - 05:19:34 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:06 UTC