[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <3371590.dCyFlG7rJg@wuerfel>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2014 10:37:42 +0100
From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@...db.de>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: Heena Sirwani <heenasirwani@...il.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, john.stultz@...aro.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7] timekeeping: Added a function to return tv_sec portion of ktime_get_ts64()
On Wednesday 29 October 2014 10:21:18 Thomas Gleixner wrote:
> On Wed, 29 Oct 2014, Heena Sirwani wrote:
> > +time64_t ktime_get_seconds(void)
> > +{
> > + time64_t seconds;
> > + struct timekeeper *tk = &tk_core.timekeeper;
> > + unsigned int seq;
> > +
> > + WARN_ON(timekeeping_suspended);
>
> You want to have the same 64bit logic as you did for
> ktime_get_real_seconds. So on 64bit it boils down to return
> tk->ktime_sec.
>
> > +
> > + do {
> > + seq = read_seqcount_begin(&tk_core.seq);
> > + seconds = tk->ktime_sec;
> > +
> > + } while (read_seqcount_retry(&tk_core.seq, seq));
>
I wonder if we should just make tk->ktime_sec 'unsigned long' and
avoid the lock for 32-bit as well. Are there any theoretical
cases where the monotonic time could overflow a 32-bit integer?
As a minor optimization 's64 nsec_offset' could also be 'long',
since that only stores a number that is known to be less than
1000000000.
Arnd
--
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