text: On Friday 28 November 2003 19:35, Ricardo Nabinger Sanchez wrote:> Quoting Tim Schmielau <tim@physik3.uni-rostock.de>> Sent on Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:34:49 +0100 (CET)>> > > This patch fixes an #endif misplacement, which leads to dead code in> > > sched_clock() in arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c, due to a return> > > outside the ifdef/endif.> >> > No, this is exactly what is intended: don't use the TSC on NUMA, use> > jiffies instead.> > Look at the comment just above those lines.>> I'm breaking things. Sorry.>> I think I understood it now: the #ifndef protects only the check for TSC> availability on non-NUMA archs. If it's available, and not under NUMA (so> the ifndef), use it (jump to the rdtscll()), otherwise return the> expression result.>> The strange thing to me is that I'm getting 1/10 of the expected value when> measuring tasks timeslices. Instead of getting ~100ms for tasks which just> burn CPU, I'm getting 10ms.>> I measure timeslices inside schedule(), updating the average timeslice for> the leaving process, using (now - prev->timestamp).>> Any clue of what am I doing wrong?Hi,It could it be possible that TSC isn't being enabled on your processor due to a buggy TSC. You can try to trace the code on init_tsc(), in arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c to realize what's going on.You can also try to check whether you're using HPET or not (when enabled and supported it makes use of TSC) in your .config . In the case you're not using it, the code that calibrates and dictates how to deal with the stamp counter is calibrate_tsc(), in arch/i386/kernel/timers/common.c.Hope this helps,Lucas-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.orgMore majordomo info at read the FAQ at