Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 06 Feb 2009 20:00:00 +0300 | From | Pavel Emelyanov <> | Subject | Re: [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) >> -- >
| |