mirror of https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
Cc: clameter@engr.sgi.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
	akpm@osdl.org, ralf@linux-mips.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] simplify update_times (avoid jiffies/jiffies_64 aliasing problem)
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2006 10:13:58 -0800	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1141409638.9727.17.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20060303.114406.64806237.nemoto@toshiba-tops.co.jp>

On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 11:44 +0900, Atsushi Nemoto wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 2 Mar 2006 11:09:16 -0800 (PST), Christoph Lameter <clameter@engr.sgi.com> said:
> >> In kernel 2.6, update_times() is called directly in timer
> >> interrupt, so there is no point calculating ticks here.  This also
> >> get rid of difference of jiffies and jiffies_64 due to compiler's
> >> optimization (which was reported previously with subject
> >> "jiffies_64 vs. jiffies").
> 
> clameter> If update_wall_time() and calc_load() are always called with
> clameter> the constant one then you may be able to optimize these two
> clameter> functions as well.
> 
> Sure.  I tried to do only one thing at a time, but it might be better
> to clean them up together.  Patch revised.
> 
> 
> In kernel 2.6, update_times() is called directly in timer interrupt,
> so there is no point calculating ticks here.  Then update_wall_time()
> and calc_load() can also be optimized.  This also get rid of
> difference of jiffies and jiffies_64 due to compiler's optimization
> (which was reported previously with subject "jiffies_64 vs. jiffies").


I'm not opposed to this change, but I'm not sure if the barrier with a
clear comment as to why its needed might be better in the short term.

> Also adjust x86_64 timer interrupt handler with this change.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Atsushi Nemoto <anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp>
> 
> diff --git a/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c b/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> index 3080f84..7a1d790 100644
> --- a/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> +++ b/arch/x86_64/kernel/time.c
> @@ -423,7 +423,8 @@ void main_timer_handler(struct pt_regs *
>  
>  	if (lost > 0) {
>  		handle_lost_ticks(lost, regs);
> -		jiffies += lost;
> +		while (lost--)
> +			do_timer(regs);
>  	}

i386 also has lost tick processing that will need to be handed as well. 

thanks
-john






  parent reply	other threads:[~2006-03-03 18:14 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 36+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2006-03-02 14:02 Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-02 15:51 ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-02 19:09 ` Christoph Lameter
2006-03-03  2:44   ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-03  3:04     ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-03  3:20       ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-03  4:31       ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-03  5:45         ` David S. Miller
2006-03-03 16:26           ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-03 16:31         ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-04  8:18           ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-04 11:20             ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-04 11:40               ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-04  5:21                 ` Andi Kleen
2006-03-04 23:13                 ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-06  2:32                   ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-04 11:42               ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-04 11:44                 ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-04 12:33                   ` Paul Mackerras
2006-03-04 16:43                     ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-03 20:17       ` john stultz
2006-03-03 21:15         ` Andrew Morton
2006-03-04 17:15         ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-07-30 14:54           ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-07-31 10:36             ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-01 14:44               ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-08-02 12:50                 ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-03 15:53                   ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-08-04 14:02                     ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-06 16:13                       ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-08-07 11:28                         ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-07 19:58                         ` Andrew Morton
2006-08-08  8:11                           ` Martin Schwidefsky
2006-08-09 15:07                           ` Atsushi Nemoto
2006-03-03 18:13     ` john stultz [this message]
2006-03-04  2:34       ` Ralf Baechle

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=1141409638.9727.17.camel@cog.beaverton.ibm.com \
    --to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=akpm@osdl.org \
    --cc=anemo@mba.ocn.ne.jp \
    --cc=clameter@engr.sgi.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=ralf@linux-mips.org \
    /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®