* George Anzinger wrote:
> Ingo, I have been looking at the code being proposed by John Stultz.
> It looks like it handles all the issues I am talking about here. I
> think it would be best to leave the RT patch as it is WRT this issue
> and work on getting John's patch ready for prime time as
George Anzinger wrote:
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* George Anzinger wrote:
What I am suggesting is spliting the mark code so that it would only
grap the offset (current TSC in most systems) during interrupt
processing. Applying this would be done later in the thread. Since
it is not applying the offset
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* George Anzinger wrote:
What I am suggesting is spliting the mark code so that it would only
grap the offset (current TSC in most systems) during interrupt
processing. Applying this would be done later in the thread. Since
it is not applying the offset, the xtime_lock would
* George Anzinger wrote:
> What I am suggesting is spliting the mark code so that it would only
> grap the offset (current TSC in most systems) during interrupt
> processing. Applying this would be done later in the thread. Since
> it is not applying the offset, the xtime_lock would not need t
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* George Anzinger wrote:
so ->mark_offset and do_timer() go together, and happen under
xtime_lock. What problem is there if we do this?
We are trying to get an accurate picture of when, exactly in time,
jiffies changes. [...]
but that's the point of allowing the threading of t
* George Anzinger wrote:
> > so ->mark_offset and do_timer() go together, and happen under
> > xtime_lock. What problem is there if we do this?
>
> We are trying to get an accurate picture of when, exactly in time,
> jiffies changes. [...]
but that's the point of allowing the threading of the
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* George Anzinger wrote:
how about the patch below? One of the important benefits of the
threaded timer IRQ is the ability to make xtime_lock a mutex.
The problem is that that removes the
cur_timer->mark_offset();
do_timer(regs);
in time. [...]
i'm not sure i
* George Anzinger wrote:
> > how about the patch below? One of the important benefits of the
> > threaded timer IRQ is the ability to make xtime_lock a mutex.
>
> The problem is that that removes the
> cur_timer->mark_offset();
> do_timer(regs);
> in time. [...]
i'm not sure i und
Ingo Molnar wrote:
* George Anzinger wrote:
It seems to me that we need to either do the attached or to rewrite
the timer front end code to just gather the offset info and defer to
the timer irq thread to update jiffies and the offset stuff. In
either case we really can not split the two and we
* George Anzinger wrote:
> It seems to me that we need to either do the attached or to rewrite
> the timer front end code to just gather the offset info and defer to
> the timer irq thread to update jiffies and the offset stuff. In
> either case we really can not split the two and we do need th
It seems to me that we need to either do the attached or to rewrite the timer
front end code to just gather the offset info and defer to the timer irq thread
to update jiffies and the offset stuff. In either case we really can not split
the two and we do need the xtime_lock protection.
--
Georg
11 matches
Mail list logo
