[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: 2.6.18-rt7: rollover with 32-bit cycles_t
On Tue, 2006-11-07 at 17:36 -0800, Kevin Hilman wrote:
> On ARM, I'm noticing the 'bug' message from check_critical_timing()
> where two calls to get_cycles() are compared and the 2nd is assumed to
> be >= the first.
> This isn't properly handling the case of rollover which occurs
> relatively often with fast hardware clocks and 32-bit cycle counters.
> Is this really a bug? If the get_cycles() can be assumed to run between
> 0 and (cycles_t)~0, using the right unsigned math could get a proper
> delta even in the rollover case. Is this a safe assumption?

Seems like the check should really be using something like time_before()
time_after() which takes the rollover into account .. What I don't
understand is why we don't see those on x86 ..


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-08 04:27    [W:0.060 / U:3.264 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site