[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:0.019 / U:21.776 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site