On Wed, 2005-09-14 at 20:13 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote:
> > @@ -792,13 +769,8 @@ static void update_wall_time_one_tick(vo
> > * advance the tick more.
> > */
> > time_phase += time_adj;
> > - if (time_phase <= -FINENSEC) {
> > - long ltemp = -time_phase >> (SHIFT_SCALE - 10);
> > - time_phase += ltemp << (SHIFT_SCALE - 10);
> > - delta_nsec -= ltemp;
> > - }
> > - else if (time_phase >= FINENSEC) {
> > - long ltemp = time_phase >> (SHIFT_SCALE - 10);
> > + if (abs(time_phase) >= FINENSEC) {
> > + long ltemp = shift_right(time_phase, (SHIFT_SCALE - 10));
> > time_phase -= ltemp << (SHIFT_SCALE - 10);
> > delta_nsec += ltemp;
> > }
>
> I checked and this actually generates worse code.
Well, if I drop the abs() and use:
if ((time_phase >= FINENSEC) || (time_phase <= -FINENSEC))
It looks pretty close in my test. Is that cool with you?
thanks
-john
-
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]
| |
 |