[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080602172203.GI26854@enneenne.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Jun 2008 19:22:03 +0200
From: Rodolfo Giometti <giometti@...eenne.com>
To: Alan Cox <alan@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: LinuxPPS low-level IRQs timestamps & ldisc
On Mon, Jun 02, 2008 at 04:48:40PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I prefere avoid the if clause for getnstimeofday() since each
> > instruction delay may decrease time precision, so:
>
> Why should everyone else pay the cost of the getnstimeofday they don't
> need ?
>
> The single conditional check at the start won't make the slightest
> material difference to your accuracy.
In the past we noticed that just moving up the getnstimeofday() of
only one instruction, from:
port->icount.dcd++;
getnstimeofday(&ts);
to:
getnstimeofday(&ts);
port->icount.dcd++;
the time precision improved from 5ms to 2ms...
However, if you prefere that I add the if clause, I'll do it.
Thanks,
Rodolfo
--
GNU/Linux Solutions e-mail: giometti@...eenne.com
Linux Device Driver giometti@...ux.it
Embedded Systems phone: +39 349 2432127
UNIX programming skype: rodolfo.giometti
--
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