On 04/19/2010 01:59 PM, Peter Zijlstra wrote:
quoted text
>
>> So what do we need?  test for both TSC_RELIABLE and NONSTOP_TSC?  IMO
>> TSC_RELIABLE should imply NONSTOP_TSC.
>>      
> Yeah, I think RELIABLE does imply NONSTOP and CONSTANT, but NONSTOP&&
> CONSTANT does not make RELIABLE.
>    

The manual says:

quoted text
> 16.11.1 Invariant TSC
>
> The time stamp counter in newer processors may support an enhancement, 
> referred
> to as invariant TSC. Processor’s support for invariant TSC is indicated by
> CPUID.80000007H:EDX[8].
> The invariant TSC will run at a constant rate in all ACPI P-, C-. and 
> T-states. This is
> the architectural behavior moving forward. On processors with 
> invariant TSC
> support, the OS may use the TSC for wall clock timer services (instead 
> of ACPI or
> HPET timers). TSC reads are much more efficient and do not incur the 
> overhead
> associated with a ring transition or access to a platform resource.

and this maps to NONSTOP, so I think we're fine.

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function

--
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/