From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S266152AbUBKSgg (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:36:36 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S266153AbUBKSgg (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:36:36 -0500 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.129]:28818 "EHLO e31.co.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S266152AbUBKSge (ORCPT ); Wed, 11 Feb 2004 13:36:34 -0500 Subject: Re: 2.6.2 - System clock runs too fast From: john stultz To: Markus Hofmann Cc: lkml In-Reply-To: <200402111007.50549.markus@gofurther.de> References: <200402101332.26552.markus@gofurther.de> <1076442533.1351.35.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> <200402111007.50549.markus@gofurther.de> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1076524588.795.28.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.4.5 (1.4.5-7) Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 10:36:28 -0800 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2004-02-11 at 01:07, Markus Hofmann wrote: > Thank you for answering. > In the meantime I heard that apm could cause this problem. I tested this by > compiling acpi. The result was that the clock runs normal with acpi. > But I want to use apm. So I removed the acpi and now the system clock is too > slow with only apm. > > I think this is a very curious thing! :-( Indeed, normally its ACPI that causes more problems. That's a new one. I'd be curious how this drift changes using the attached patch. thanks -john ===== arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c 1.35 vs edited ===== --- 1.35/arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c Wed Jan 7 00:31:11 2004 +++ edited/arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c Tue Jan 20 13:22:54 2004 @@ -226,7 +226,7 @@ delta += delay_at_last_interrupt; lost = delta/(1000000/HZ); delay = delta%(1000000/HZ); - if (lost >= 2) { + if (0 && (lost >= 2)) { jiffies_64 += lost-1; /* sanity check to ensure we're not always losing ticks */