Messages in this thread | | | From | (H. Peter Anvin) | Subject | Re: udelay() possibly broken on Alpha. | Date | 28 Aug 1999 21:24:17 GMT |
| |
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/
| |