From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: george anzinger <george@mvista.com>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Joel.Becker@oracle.com, "Martin J. Bligh" <mbligh@aracnet.com>,
wim.coekaerts@oracle.com
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.64_monotonic-clock_A1
Date: 11 Mar 2003 14:59:13 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1047423553.16608.723.camel@w-jstultz2.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <3E6E65BC.2060200@mvista.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1913 bytes --]
On Tue, 2003-03-11 at 14:39, george anzinger wrote:
> I must have confused you. I am woking on a get time of day sort of
> thing. In time.c, the gettimeofday code calls get_offset() and then
> adds in lost ticks (ticks clocked by the PIT interrupt but not yet
> rolled into the wall clock (xtime). I was thinking that get_offset
> might be defined to add this its result.
I'm still not quite following that. But as long as we're both pointing
at the same code and grunting in agreement I think I'll just let it
slide ;)
> But, back to the problem I am trying to solve. The posixtimers code
> is in the common kernel and needs the result returned by get_offset
> OR, we could define a new function, get_monotonictimeofday(), which
> returns the jiffies since boot + get_offset() + pending ticks (i.e. it
> would be the same as gettimeofday except it would use jiffies_64
> instead of xtime to get its result. The format would be a timespec,
> i.e. the same as xtime.
Actually, what is the difference between the call you're trying to
implement and monotonic_clock() (outside of the timespec return)? Could
you point me to the specific code you are describing? It sounds like
we're working on basically the same solution from two different angles.
> This translates directly into a system call and is also used in the
> timers code to convert from wall clock time to jiffies time for timers.
>
> Either way, we have a bit of a mess due to the arch dependency. I
> don't really care which way it goes, but I do think it should be
> resolved in 2.5.
Well, if the generic interfaces aren't providing what you need, then a
new interface needs to be considered. This is precisely what the
hangcheck-timer code ran into, and is why we're working on this
monotonic_clock() code (which is intended be arch independent in the
future).
thanks
-john
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 232 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2003-03-11 22:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-03-11 19:39 john stultz
2003-03-11 19:40 ` john stultz
2003-03-11 21:47 ` george anzinger
2003-03-11 21:58 ` john stultz
2003-03-11 22:39 ` george anzinger
2003-03-11 22:59 ` john stultz [this message]
2003-03-11 23:44 ` george anzinger
2003-03-12 2:57 Jim Houston
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1047423553.16608.723.camel@w-jstultz2.beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=Joel.Becker@oracle.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=mbligh@aracnet.com \
--cc=wim.coekaerts@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
all inboxes | Powered by JetHome®