On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 21:20 +0100, Thomas Gleixner wrote:
quoted text
> On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 11:55 -0800, Daniel Walker wrote:
> > > What kind of artificial problem are you creating here ?
> >
> > I'm not trying to create anything .. However, as I said before
> > the /proc/interrupts "timer" entry doesn't work the same as it has in
> > other kernels.
> 
> Yes, it is different. Why are you insisting, that something is a problem
> just because it is different ?

In this case "different" goes into userspace .. So different could mean
userspace regression, which is something that we don't want. I have no
idea if any apps use /proc/interrupts , but it's possible since it's
been around for a long time.

The reason that I'm bringing it up at all is because people have ask me
"Why isn't my timer ticking??"

quoted text
> > > > We could just remove the timer entry .
> > > 
> > > No we can't. The timer interrupt is setup and it does not go away, as we
> > > keep the PIT as a backup for the broken lapics.
> > 
> > Ok, how about adding the interrupts to the list which are driving the
> > timer ?
> 
> Uurg. /proc/interrupts has nothing to do with timers. It's interrupts
> statistics. See LOC entry for the lapic ones.

Your saying we can't remove it tho, if /proc/interrupts is not related
to timers why does the entry exist at all ? Your saying the LOC entry is
the new "timer" entry, but we still have the old "timer" entry ..

Getting confusing ..

It might be nicer to list all the registered clock event sources
in /proc/interrupts, with more descriptive names .. 

Why is it that HRT doesn't use the "timer" as a valid timer?

Daniel

-
unsubscribe notice
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/