On Tue, 2 May 2006, Russell King wrote:
> On Tue, May 02, 2006 at 01:18:25PM -0400, Nicolas Pitre wrote:
> > On Tue, 2 May 2006, Andi Kleen wrote:
> >
> > > On Tuesday 02 May 2006 18:50, Russell King wrote:
> > >
> > > > You're right assuming you have a 64-bit TSC, but ARM has at best a
> > > > 32-bit cycle counter which rolls over about every 179 seconds - with
> > > > gives a range of values from sched_clock from 0 to 178956970625 or
> > > > 0x29AAAAAA81.
> > > >
> > > > That's rather more of a problem than having it happen every 208 days.
> > >
> > > Ok but you know it's always 32bit right? You can fix it up then
> > > with your proposal of a sched_diff()
> > >
> > > The problem would be fixing it up with a unknown number of bits.
> >
> > Just shift it left so you know you always have the most significant bits
> > valid. The sched_diff() would take care of scaling it back to nanosecs.
>
> sched_clock is currently defined to return nanoseconds so this isn't
> a possibility.
If we're discussing the addition of a sched_clock_diff(), why whouldn't
shed_clock() return anything it wants in that context? It could be
redefined to have a return value meaningful only to shed_clock_diff()é
Nicolas
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
