Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | Date | Tue, 15 Jul 2003 03:00:43 -0400 (EDT) | From | Zwane Mwaikambo <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] N1int for interactivity |
| |
On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > base = monotonic_base; > > - read_unlock_irq(&monotonic_lock); > > + read_unlock_irqrestore(&monotonic_lock, flags); > > > > /* Read the Time Stamp Counter */ > > Why do we need to take a global lock here? Can't we use > get_cycles() or something?
I think that'll break even on some x86 boxes if we used get_cycles. I do wonder however why we need that lock, i see x86/64 uses seqlock at least. Although i can't vouch for whether that would have an adverse affect here. I presume Stultz would know.
> Have all the other architectures been reviewed to see if they need this > change?
No one else appears to have monotonic_clock, this would break every other arch out there.
-- function.linuxpower.ca - 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/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |