Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:21:09 +0300 | From | Sergei Shtylyov <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH] 2.6.18-rt7: fix more issues with 32-bit cycles_t in latency_trace.c (take 3) |
| |
Hello.
Ingo Molnar wrote:
>>>i'd suggest to redo it - but please keep it simple and clean. Those >>>dozens of casts to u64 are quite ugly.
>> Alas, there's *nothing* I can do about it with 32-bit cycles_t. >>[...]
> there's *always* a way to do such things more cleanly - such as the > patch below. Could you try to fix it up for 32-bit cycles_t platforms? I > bet the hackery will be limited to now() and maybe the conversion > routines, instead of spreading all around latency_trace.c.
I'm not sure what you want me to do... You've switched to clocksource specific cycle_t (which is u64), do you want me to use the clocksource interface to get the cycles from now on?
> Index: linux/kernel/latency_trace.c > =================================================================== > --- linux.orig/kernel/latency_trace.c > +++ linux/kernel/latency_trace.c [...] > @@ -1721,7 +1722,7 @@ check_critical_timing(int cpu, struct cp > T2 = get_monotonic_cycles(); > > /* check for buggy clocks, handling wrap for 32-bit clocks */ > - if (TYPE_EQUAL(cycles_t, unsigned long)) { > + if (TYPE_EQUAL(cycle_t, unsigned long)) { > if (time_after((unsigned long)T1, (unsigned long)T2)) > printk("bug: %08lx < %08lx!\n", > (unsigned long)T2, (unsigned long)T1);
This earlier fix by Kevin woulnd't have sense anymore with cycle_t...
WBR, Sergei - 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/
| |