On 05.09.2005 [08:44:25 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 12:30:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > > First of all, and maybe this is just me, I think it would be good to
> > > make the dyn_tick_timer per-interrupt source, as opposed to each arch?
> >
> > Nish, may be a good idea as it may make the code more cleaner (it will
> > remove the 'if (cpu_has_local_apic())' kind of code that is there
> > currently in x86). However note that ARM currently has 'handler' member also
> > part of it, which is used to recover time and that has nothing to do with
> > interrupt source. Unless there is something like John's TOD, we still
> > need to recover time in a arch-dependent fashion ..Where do you
> > propose to have that 'handler' member?
>
> Exactly where it is. It's there because of the problem you allude to
> above - it's there to catch up system time. Any generic code can't
> answer the question "how much time has passed since we disabled the
> timer" without additional information.
I agree.
> However, we could change "handler" to be a function pointer which
> returns the number of missed ticks instead, and then updates the
> kernels time and tick keeping. That would probably be more efficient.
Yes, I think
unsigned long (*recover_time)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *);
or something similar (not sure about the params), might be more
appropriate.
Thanks,
Nish
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |