From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:33:46 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:33:36 -0500 Received: from gateway-2.hyperlink.com ([213.52.152.2]:23824 "EHLO core-gateway-1.hyperlink.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 09:33:24 -0500 Subject: Re: asymmetric multiprocessing From: "Martin A. Brooks" To: Mark Hahn Cc: LKML In-Reply-To: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="=-BpgmAwUoebS95qCicxH3" X-Mailer: Evolution/1.0 (Preview Release) Date: 20 Dec 2001 14:33:22 +0000 Message-Id: <1008858802.431.43.camel@unhygienix> Mime-Version: 1.0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org --=-BpgmAwUoebS95qCicxH3 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, 2001-12-20 at 14:13, Mark Hahn wrote: > not supported (and frowned upon by the spec). the issue is TSC, > of course, and it's definitely not clear whether the normal case > (correctly configured SMP) should be burdoned by support for=20 > mixed-clock chips. I'm no expert on MP, hence I fail to see why differing clock speeds between CPUs should be a problem providing the system bus rates are constant. As each CPU would be rated differently as far as bogomips are concerned, couldn't the scheduler apply load accordingly? --=20 Martin A. Brooks Systems Administrator Jtrix Ltd t: +44 7395 4990 57-59 Neal Street f: +44 7395 4991 London, WC2H 9PP e: martin@jtrix.com --=-BpgmAwUoebS95qCicxH3 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org iEYEABECAAYFAjwh9rIACgkQwgE0gTKdDobL4gCggWd+Vfz+PuzonBXX+VyxB7Sj Ms8An1QUlRcC1Y4oIyj8m6XacjUFt7Vq =rFsD -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-BpgmAwUoebS95qCicxH3--