lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Aug]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: udelay() possibly broken on Alpha.
Date
Followup to:  <Pine.LNX.3.95.990828215328.940A-100000@localhost>
By author: Gerard Roudier <groudier@club-internet.fr>
In newsgroup: linux.dev.kernel
>
> Playing with this sort of alignment is not the way to go in my opinion.
> There are lots of subleties in hardware optimizations we probably never
> will know about. The difference may be due, for example, to some subtle
> hashing that takes into account some other bits.
>
> A strong alignment may allow the Bogo Mips result to be more deterministic
> among kernel actual map, but no need to have such a deterministic Bogo
> Mips result for udelay() to be accurate. It is the __delay() loop that
> must behave consistenly for udelay() to be fine.
>

I maintain that for CPUs that have a (usable) cycle counter, the
delay loop should use the cycle counter to maintain time.

-hpa
--
<hpa@transmeta.com> at work, <hpa@zytor.com> in private!

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

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:53    [W:0.032 / U:1.268 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site