Re: jiffies_64 vs. jiffies

[Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>]

>>>>> On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 02:00:16 +1100, Nick Piggin <nickpiggin@yahoo.com.au> said:

>> Well, do you mean it should be like this ?
>> 
>> jiffies_64++;
>> update_times(jiffies_64);

nick> Yeah. It makes your patch a line smaller too!

Another solution might be simplifying update_times() like this.  It
looks there is no point to calculate ticks in update_times().

diff --git a/kernel/timer.c b/kernel/timer.c
index fe3a9a9..6188c99 100644
--- a/kernel/timer.c
+++ b/kernel/timer.c
@@ -906,14 +906,9 @@ void run_local_timers(void)
  */
 static inline void update_times(void)
 {
-	unsigned long ticks;
-
-	ticks = jiffies - wall_jiffies;
-	if (ticks) {
-		wall_jiffies += ticks;
-		update_wall_time(ticks);
-	}
-	calc_load(ticks);
+	wall_jiffies++;
+	update_wall_time(1);
+	calc_load(1);
 }
   
 /*


As for long term solution, using an union for jiffies and jiffies_64
would be robust.  But it affects so many codes ...

---
Atsushi Nemoto
-
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/