[lkml]   [2002]   [Nov]   [11]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Voyager subarchitecture for 2.5.46
On Sun, 2002-11-10 at 11:46, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 10:59:55AM -0800, Linus Torvalds wrote:
> > On Sun, 10 Nov 2002, Pavel Machek wrote:
> > > Unfortunately, this means "bye bye vsyscalls for gettimeofday".
> >
> > Not necessarily. All of the fastpatch and the checking can be done by the
> > vsyscall, and if the vsyscall notices that there is a backwards jump in
> > time it just gives up and does a real system call. The vsyscall does need
> > to figure out the CPU it's running on somehow, but that should be solvable
> > - indexing through the thread ID or something.
> I'm planning to store the CPU number in the highest bits of the TSC ...

I could be wrong, but we had considered this earlier, and found that
there isn't a way to set the high bits of the TSC, you can only clear

> > The system call overhead tends to scale up very well with CPU speed (the
> > one esception being the P4 which just has some internal problems with "int
> > 0x80" and slowed down compared to a PIII).
> >
> > So I would just suggest not spending a lot of effort on it, considering
> > the problems it already has.
> Agreed. The only problem left I see is the need to have an interrupt of
> every CPU from time to time to update the per-cpu time values, and to
> synchronize those to the 'global timer interrupt' somehow.

Yes, this would be needed for per-cpu tsc.


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: 2005-03-22 13:30    [W:0.113 / U:1.820 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site