Re: [PATCH 1/3] dynticks - implement no idle hz for x86

[Srivatsa Vaddagiri <vatsa@in.ibm.com>]

On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 10:04:24AM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote:
> > 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.

What would this be for x86? This could be cur_timer->mark_offset()
itself for now i think, until John's TOD comes along.

-- 


Thanks and Regards,
Srivatsa Vaddagiri,
Linux Technology Center,
IBM Software Labs,
Bangalore, INDIA - 560017
-
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/