[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20080712060504.GB14714@elte.hu>
Date: Sat, 12 Jul 2008 08:05:04 +0200
From: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
To: Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com>
Cc: "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@...or.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"Maciej W. Rozycki" <macro@...ux-mips.org>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH -tip] x86: apic LVTT - use APIC_DIVISOR on 64bit mode
* Cyrill Gorcunov <gorcunov@...il.com> wrote:
> We use APIC_TDR_DIV_16 while setting APIC_TDCR (divisor) it happened
> this moment is hidden from __setup_APIC_LVTT caller. So we better
> increment caller 'clocks' value to not change current behaviour and
> use APIC_DIVISOR (as already done in 32bit version).
>
> The main benefit - unified procedure code for 32/64bit modes.
> Please review carefully. Any comments are welcome.
> I'm _not_ 100% sure if this patch is safe.
hm, how about the other caller to __setup_APIC_LVTT(),
lapic_timer_setup():
case CLOCK_EVT_MODE_ONESHOT:
__setup_APIC_LVTT(calibration_result,
mode != CLOCK_EVT_MODE_PERIODIC, 1);
break;
that will affect high-res timers. Wont calibration_result have the same
value after your patch as well, but only a 16th of it will be used in
__setup_APIC_LVTT(), causing 16 times shorter timeouts than intended?
I.e. are we fixing a bug, are we changing nothing, or are we introducing
a bug? :-)
Ingo
--
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