> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Philip Gladstone wrote:
> >This code suffers from the same problem that all the existing
> >do_fast code suffers from -- namely, the assumption that the timer
> >interrupt is processed exactly on the 100Hz tick.
[...]
> Excellent, and the cost is not high at all (2 I/O cycles every 10 ms).
>
> Just one microscopic knitpicking, if you allow me: since reading the TSC is
> *much* faster than latching the 8253/82C54 CTC, it should come first.
>
> And a question:
> What are and why did you do those changes in /kernel/time.c? (I mean, I
> understood those in /arch/i386/kernel/time.c)
I agree with Andre's assessment and questions. Since we're banging on
*i386*-architecture time brokenness, we should be very careful to leave
the other architectures' stuff alone. Also, I'm very queasy about messing
with the inherent time hard-limits which protect monotonicity.
I'd love to see the improvements in your patch merged with the
improvements in Andre's 2.0.x and my 2.1.x patches.
--Scott
@ @
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=
C. Scott Ananian: cananian@lcs.mit.edu / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html