lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2004]   [Dec]   [26]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: apic and 8254 wraparound ...
Hi!

> > When you read one 8bit value from an 8254 timer the values latch for
> > read so that when you read the other half of the 16bit value you get the
> > value from the moment of the first read. On
> > neptune that didn't work right so you got halves of two differing
> > samples. That means the error would be worst case a bit under 300 (257
> > for the wrap + a few for timing)
>
> okay, I still wasn't able to find the documentation
> at the intel site, but I could extrapolate the issue
> from your explanation (thanks by the way)
>
> get_8254_timer_count() reads lo byte first, then the
> high byte, so assuming that the latch doesn't work
> as expected on intel 430 NX and LX chipsets, can
> result in the following type of error:
>
> counter >= 2^8 * N, LO is read (for example 0)
> counter is decremented
> counter < 2^8 * N HI is read (N - 1)
>
> so the read value will be exactly 2^8 lower than
> expected (assumed that the counter doesn't do more
> than 256 counts between the two inb_p()s)
>
> second the wrap-around will always happen _after_
> the counter reached zero, so we can further assume
> that the prev_count, has to be lower than 2^8, when
> we observe a wraparound (otherwise we don't care)
>
> let's further assume the counter does not decrement
> more than 2^7 between two consecutive gets, then we
> can change the wraparound check to something like
> this:
>
> curr_count = get_8254_timer_count();
>
> do {
> prev_count = curr_count;
> redo:
> curr_count = get_8254_timer_count();
>
> /* workaround for broken Mercury/Neptune */
> if (prev_count - current_count >= 256)
> goto redo;
>
> /* ignore values far off from zero */
> if (prev_count > 128)
> continue;
>
> } while (prev_count >= curr_count)
>
>
> basically the check for (prev_count > 128) can be
> removed but it feels a little more comfortable ...
>
> would such change be acceptable for mainline?

Not sure... Reading time is quite performance critical; doing it twice
would be bad. It should be acceptable if it was only done on
Mercury/Neptune systems.
Pavel
--
People were complaining that M$ turns users into beta-testers...
...jr ghea gurz vagb qrirybcref, naq gurl frrz gb yvxr vg gung jnl!
-
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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 14:09    [W:0.056 / U:0.620 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site