From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1758720AbYIAWCv (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:02:51 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1750908AbYIAWCn (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:02:43 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:45101 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750821AbYIAWCm (ORCPT ); Mon, 1 Sep 2008 18:02:42 -0400 Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2008 15:02:18 -0700 (PDT) From: Linus Torvalds To: Thomas Gleixner cc: Larry Finger , LKML , "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Alok Kataria , Michael Buesch Subject: Re: Regression in 2.6.27 caused by commit bfc0f59 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <48BB2116.1060904@lwfinger.net> <48BC2A03.9000104@lwfinger.net> User-Agent: Alpine 1.10 (LFD 962 2008-03-14) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 1 Sep 2008, Thomas Gleixner wrote: > > The CPU calibration of < 2.6.27 is against PIT and does _NOT_ give me a > pretty good estimation for TSC. Umm. Which one. The 32-bit or the 64-bit? I already pointed out that the 64-bit PIT calibration is pure and utter GARBAGE. And I pointed out that the 32-bit one is a lot smarter. > I was pretty happy when Alok beat me to unify the TSC calibration code > as it solved one of my long standing todo items, which also filled my > buglist on a regular base. The problem is that he unified it around the _worse_ code. Linus