Hi Vojtech,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:02:09PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> The K8's still guarantee that subsequent RDTSCs return increasing
> values, even if the processor reorders them.
>
> What could have been happening then was that the RDTSC instruction might
> have been reordered by the
Hi Andi,
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Joerg Roedel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would like to answer what the special purpose of the get_cycles_sync()
> > function is in the x86 architecture. In special I ask myself why
> > this function has to be *sync*?
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 11:02:09PM +0100, Vojtech Pavlik wrote:
> > He can give details on the test.
> >
> > I suspect the reason was because the CPU reordered the RDTSCs so that
> > a later RDTSC could return a value before an earlier one. This can
> > happen because gettimeofday() is so fast tha
On Tue, Oct 30, 2007 at 09:21:02PM +0100, Andi Kleen wrote:
> "Joerg Roedel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > I would like to answer what the special purpose of the get_cycles_sync()
> > function is in the x86 architecture. In special I ask myself why
> > this function has to be *sync*?
>
> Vojt
"Joerg Roedel" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I would like to answer what the special purpose of the get_cycles_sync()
> function is in the x86 architecture. In special I ask myself why
> this function has to be *sync*?
Vojtech had one test that tested time monotonicity over CPUs
and it constantl
5 matches
Mail list logo