On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Ben Greear wrote:
> I wonder, is it more expensive to write all drivers to handle the
> wraps than to take the long long increment hit? The increment is
> once every 10 miliseconds, right? That is not too often, all things
> considered...
If you are willing to code in assembler instead of C you can do better,
at least on x86. You just need to do a 32 bit increment on the LS word,
and if you get a carry you can incr the MS word.
> Maybe the non-atomicity of the long long increment is the problem?
I doubt it, the problem is that the software which expects jiffies is
not all going to work well 64 bit. I think that's more the issue, and why
Alan et al are fixing it piecemeal, I don't think there's some magic fix
they're missing.
> Does this problem still exist on 64-bit machines?
Absolutely. But not as often ;-)
-- bill davidsen <davidsen@tmr.com> CTO, TMR Associates, Inc Doing interesting things with little computers since 1979.- 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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 23 2002 - 21:00:17 EST