From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: Dominik Brodowski <linux@dominikbrodowski.de>
Cc: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
george anzinger <george@mvista.com>, greg kh <greg@kroah.com>,
Chris McDermott <lcm@us.ibm.com>,
garloff@suse.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] mull'ify multiplication with HZ in __const_udelay() [Was: Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?]
Date: Mon, 07 Jun 2004 15:00:56 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1086645655.2234.182.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20040607212058.GA23106@dominikbrodowski.de>
On Mon, 2004-06-07 at 14:20, Dominik Brodowski wrote:
> Move the multiplication of (loops_per_jiffy * xloops) with HZ into
> the "mull" asm operation. This increases the accuracy of the delay functions
> largely:
>
[snip]
> diff -ruN linux-original/arch/i386/lib/delay.c linux/arch/i386/lib/delay.c
> --- linux-original/arch/i386/lib/delay.c 2004-06-07 22:01:46.608351088 +0200
> +++ linux/arch/i386/lib/delay.c 2004-06-07 22:05:03.299449496 +0200
> @@ -33,8 +33,8 @@
> int d0;
> __asm__("mull %0"
> :"=d" (xloops), "=&a" (d0)
> - :"1" (xloops),"0" (current_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy));
> - __delay(xloops * HZ);
> + :"1" (xloops),"0" (current_cpu_data.loops_per_jiffy * HZ));
> + __delay(xloops);
> }
Kurt Garloff brought up a good point that loops_per_jiffy*HZ is only
good up to 4Ghz time sources. The workaround he suggested was to
multiply xloops by 4 first and divide HZ by 4. This will allow for
frequencies up to 16Ghz.
So something like:
xloops *= 4;
__asm__("mull %0"
:"=d" (xloops), "=&a" (d0)
:"1" (xloops),"0" (LPJ*(HZ/4)));
-john
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-06-07 22:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2004-06-05 7:12 Too much error in __const_udelay() ? john stultz
2004-06-05 15:23 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-06-06 19:46 ` Pavel Machek
2004-06-07 19:12 ` john stultz
2004-06-07 20:27 ` john stultz
2004-06-07 21:20 ` [PATCH 1/3] mull'ify multiplication with HZ in __const_udelay() [Was: Re: Too much error in __const_udelay() ?] Dominik Brodowski
2004-06-07 22:00 ` john stultz [this message]
2004-06-15 6:11 ` Dominik Brodowski
2004-06-07 21:22 ` [PATCH 2/3] round up in __udelay() " Dominik Brodowski
2004-06-07 21:23 ` [PATCH 3/3] fix for small xloops " Dominik Brodowski
2004-06-09 10:03 ` Pavel Machek
2004-06-07 21:23 ` Too much error in __const_udelay() ? Dominik Brodowski
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=1086645655.2234.182.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=garloff@suse.de \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=greg@kroah.com \
--cc=lcm@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@dominikbrodowski.de \
/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®