On 05.09.2005 [09:32:21 +0100], Russell King wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 01:49:35PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote:
> > This is precisely what I have done. I have made cur_timer->mark-offset() to
> > return the lost ticks and update wall-time from the callee, which
> > can be either timer_interrupt handler or in dyn-tick case the dyn-tick
> > code (I have called it dyn_tick_interrupt) which is called before processing
> > _any_ interrupt.
>
> When you have a timer which constantly increments from 0 to MAX and
> wraps, and you can set the value to match to cause an interrupt,
> it makes more sense to handle it the way we're doing it (which
> incidentally leads to no loss of precision.)
This is the way ppc works, I believe (match register).
> Calculating the number of ticks missed, updating the kernel time,
> and updating the timer match will cause problems with these - if
> the timer has already past the number of ticks you originally
> calculated, you may not get another interrupt for a long time.
Yes, this is the source of much bugginess, especially with bad hardware
:)
> > If ARM had a timer_opts equivalent we could have followed
>
> I think your timer_opts is effectively our struct sys_timer.
I agree, in looking over the two. Perhaps those structures could be
served to be unified as well? John Stultz would be the one to talk to,
though.
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]
| |
 |