From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:03:33 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:03:23 -0500 Received: from p3EE3CA8B.dip.t-dialin.net ([62.227.202.139]:15108 "HELO emma1.emma.line.org") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Tue, 2 Jan 2001 12:03:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2001 17:32:33 +0100 From: Matthias Andree To: Linux kernel mailing list Subject: Re: Linux 2.2.18: /proc/apm slows system time (was: Linux 2.2.19pre3) Message-ID: <20010102173233.C1846@emma1.emma.line.org> Mail-Followup-To: Linux kernel mailing list In-Reply-To: <20001231113423.A5146@emma1.emma.line.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: ; from alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk on Sun, Dec 31, 2000 at 13:37:00 +0000 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 31 Dec 2000, Alan Cox wrote: > If you have a tsc on your chip - I think most modern laptops will do as they > tend to be pentium/mmx k6 or pII/pIII processors, then you can check the > elapsed CPU cycles and recover the jiffies from that. Might be an interesting > exercise for someone This had been a report for a non-portable computer which should (Duron) indeed have a TSC, that is, /proc/cpuinfo lists one ;-) Do 486s generally have APM so it might be worth fixing/working around for them? If so, would re-reading from CMOS for boxes without TSC be a "valid" solution? -- Matthias Andree - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/