lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2003]   [Jul]   [15]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:46    [W:0.072 / U:0.200 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site