Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 16 Oct 2008 18:42:52 -0700 (PDT) | Subject | Re: [RFC patch 04/15] get_cycles() : powerpc64 HAVE_GET_CYCLES (update) | From | David Miller <> |
| |
From: Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@polymtl.ca> Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2008 20:43:28 -0400
> * Paul Mackerras (paulus@samba.org) wrote: > > Mathieu Desnoyers writes: > > > > > This patch selects HAVE_GET_CYCLES and makes sure get_cycles_barrier() and > > > get_cycles_rate() are implemented. > > > > [snip] > > > > > +static inline cycles_t get_cycles_rate(void) > > > +{ > > > + return CLOCK_TICK_RATE; > > > +} > > > > CLOCK_TICK_RATE is certainly wrong. You want ppc_tb_freq (declared in > > asm/time.h). Or tb_ticks_per_sec, since we seem to have two variables > > for exactly the same thing, for some reason. :) > > > > Paul. > > Ok, this should work better. Thanks ! > > Do you know if mtfb implies an instruction synchronization (isync) ? I > think that if it does not, the new get_cycles_barrier() might have to be > used at some locations in the kernel code if more precise timestamp > order is required.
You'll need to make a similar fix on sparc64.
| |