On Fri, 2006-01-13 at 17:04 -0800, David Lang wrote: > On Sat, 14 Jan 2006, Andreas Steinmetz wrote: > > > David Lang wrote: > > Well, wait until there's AMD based dual core x86_64 laptops out there > > (this email being written on a single core x86_64 one). I can already > > see the faces of the unhappy future owners being told "use idle=poll" > > when on battery and anyway going deaf by fan noise. > > > > (/me ducks and runs) > > I'm not saying it's the right answer, but it's one of two workarounds > currently available. > > idle=poll causes increased power useage > > timer source change (mentioned earlier in this thread) limits timer > precision > > neither of these are fixes, but by understanding the different costs > people can choose the work around they want to use while waiting for a > better fix. A laptop user could also bind a process to a single CPU, and use the scaling min/max values to lock CPU speed to a single value. The TSC may still stop during HLT, but software must be handling that already. Wouldn't that provide an accurate TSC? -- Zan Lynx