On 05.09.2005 [08:44:25 +0100], Russell King wrote: > On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 12:30:53PM +0530, Srivatsa Vaddagiri wrote: > > On Sun, Sep 04, 2005 at 01:10:54PM -0700, Nishanth Aravamudan wrote: > > > First of all, and maybe this is just me, I think it would be good to > > > make the dyn_tick_timer per-interrupt source, as opposed to each arch? > > > > Nish, may be a good idea as it may make the code more cleaner (it will > > remove the 'if (cpu_has_local_apic())' kind of code that is there > > currently in x86). However note that ARM currently has 'handler' member > > also > > part of it, which is used to recover time and that has nothing to do with > > interrupt source. Unless there is something like John's TOD, we still > > need to recover time in a arch-dependent fashion ..Where do you > > propose to have that 'handler' member? > > Exactly where it is. It's there because of the problem you allude to > above - it's there to catch up system time. Any generic code can't > answer the question "how much time has passed since we disabled the > timer" without additional information.
I agree. > However, we could change "handler" to be a function pointer which > returns the number of missed ticks instead, and then updates the > kernels time and tick keeping. That would probably be more efficient. Yes, I think unsigned long (*recover_time)(int, void *, struct pt_regs *); or something similar (not sure about the params), might be more appropriate. Thanks, Nish - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
