[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4758922D.7010006@goop.org>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2007 16:22:05 -0800
From: Jeremy Fitzhardinge <jeremy@...p.org>
To: Adrian Bunk <bunk@...nel.org>
CC: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Avoid overflows in kernel/time.c
Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2007 at 04:19:51PM -0800, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
>> When the conversion factor between jiffies and milli- or microseconds
>> is not a single multiply or divide, as for the case of HZ == 300, we
>> currently do a multiply followed by a divide. The intervening
>> result, however, is subject to overflows, especially since the
>> fraction is not simplified (for HZ == 300, we multiply by 300 and
>> divide by 1000).
>> ...
>> kernel/Makefile | 8 +++
>> kernel/time.c | 29 +++++++++---
>> kernel/timeconst.bc | 123 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> 3 files changed, 152 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 kernel/timeconst.bc
>> ...
>>
>
> I have read the hep text, but are the advantages of HZ == 300 really
> visible or was this more theoretical?
>
> In the latter case, we might remove the HZ == 300 choice instead.
>
300 is useful for video applications, since its a multiple of both 50
and 60Hz. Tickless may make this less relevent though.
J
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists