Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Voyager subarchitecture for 2.5.46 | Date | Mon, 11 Nov 2002 17:49:56 -0500 | From | "J.E.J. Bottomley" <> |
| |
johnstul@us.ibm.com said: > We'd still need to go back and yank out the #ifdef CONFIG_X86_TSC'ed > macros in profile.h and pksched.h or replace them w/ inlines that wrap > the rdtsc calls w/ if(cpu_has_tsc && !tsc_disable) or some such line.
Actually, the best way to do this might be to vector the rdtsc calls through a function pointer (i.e. they return zero always if the TSC is disabled, or the TSC value if it's OK). I think this might be better than checking the cpu_has_tsc flag in the code (well it's more expandable anyway, it won't be faster...)
When the TSC code is sorted out on a per cpu basis, consumers are probably going to expect rdtsc to return usable values whatever CPU it is called on, so vectoring the calls now may help this.
James
- 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/
| |