lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2009]   [Feb]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] x86: clean up hpet timer reinit
Daniel Forrest wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 06, 2009 at 03:09:43PM +0100, Ingo Molnar wrote:
>> * Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for late response - took some time to re-check this...
>> Applied to tip:timers/urgent, thanks Pavel!
>>
>> Note, since i've already queued up the minimal fix i've created a delta
>> cleanup patch from your v2 patch - see it below. (It is the exact same end
>> result in terms of code, just a nicer splitup.)
>>
>> Ingo
>>
>> ------------------->
>> >From ff08f76d738d0ec0f334b187f61e160caa321d54 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
>> Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 13:40:31 +0300
>> Subject: [PATCH] x86: clean up hpet timer reinit
>>
>> Implement Linus's suggestion: introduce the hpet_cnt_ahead()
>> helper function to compare hpet time values - like other
>> wrapping counter comparisons are abstracted away elsewhere.
>> (jiffies, ktime_t, etc.)
>>
>> Reported-by: Kirill Korotaev <dev@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@openvz.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>
>> ---
>> arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c | 12 ++++++++++--
>> 1 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
>> index c761f91..388254f 100644
>> --- a/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
>> +++ b/arch/x86/kernel/hpet.c
>> @@ -897,7 +897,7 @@ static unsigned long hpet_rtc_flags;
>> static int hpet_prev_update_sec;
>> static struct rtc_time hpet_alarm_time;
>> static unsigned long hpet_pie_count;
>> -static unsigned long hpet_t1_cmp;
>> +static u32 hpet_t1_cmp;
>> static unsigned long hpet_default_delta;
>> static unsigned long hpet_pie_delta;
>> static unsigned long hpet_pie_limit;
>> @@ -905,6 +905,14 @@ static unsigned long hpet_pie_limit;
>> static rtc_irq_handler irq_handler;
>>
>> /*
>> + * Check that the hpet counter c1 is ahead of the c2
>> + */
>> +static inline int hpet_cnt_ahead(u32 c1, u32 c2)
>> +{
>> + return (s32)(c2 - c1) < 0;
>> +}
>> +
>> +/*
>> * Registers a IRQ handler.
>> */
>> int hpet_register_irq_handler(rtc_irq_handler handler)
>> @@ -1075,7 +1083,7 @@ static void hpet_rtc_timer_reinit(void)
>> hpet_t1_cmp += delta;
>> hpet_writel(hpet_t1_cmp, HPET_T1_CMP);
>> lost_ints++;
>> - } while ((s32)(hpet_readl(HPET_COUNTER) - hpet_t1_cmp) > 0);
>> + } while (!hpet_cnt_ahead(hpet_t1_cmp, hpet_readl(HPET_COUNTER)));
>
> These are not equivalent for the case where the values are equal.
>
> Let "A = hpet_t1_cmp" and "B = hpet_readl(HPET_COUNTER)"
>
> Then "!(A > B)" means "(B - A) >= 0" not "(B - A) > 0"
>
> Shouldn't it be:
>
> + } while (hpet_cnt_ahead(hpet_readl(HPET_COUNTER), hpet_t1_cmp));
>
> Or am I missing something?

When comparator it equal to counter (the corner case we're talking about) the
hpet_cnt_ahead will return false and the loop will go on shifting the cmp,
which is what we need here.

>>
>> if (lost_ints) {
>> if (hpet_rtc_flags & RTC_PIE)
>> --
>



\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2009-02-06 18:03    [W:0.044 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site