On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:16:29 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because
> > > > > cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but a lower quality one.
* Arjan van de Ven <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock()
> > > > maintains offsets itself.
> > >
> > > Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to
> > > compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:52:06 +0100
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> * Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100,
> > Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit :
> >
> > > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock()
> > >
On Fri, 7 Dec 2007 15:52:06 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100,
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ??crit :
Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock()
maintains offsets
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock()
maintains offsets itself.
Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to
compensate large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my
offset arranges
On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 20:16:29 +0100
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* Arjan van de Ven [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because
cpu_clock() maintains offsets itself.
Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to
* Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100,
> Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ??crit :
>
> > Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock()
> > maintains offsets itself.
>
> Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to
Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100,
Ingo Molnar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit :
> Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains
> offsets itself.
Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate
large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my
* Guillaume Chazarain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hmrpf. sched_clock() is used for the time stamp of the printks. We
> > > need to find some better solution other than killing off the tsc
> > > access completely.
> >
> > Something like http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/16/291 that would need
Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100,
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock() maintains
offsets itself.
Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate
large jumping clocks with a jiffy resolution, while my offset
* Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Le Fri, 7 Dec 2007 14:55:25 +0100,
Ingo Molnar [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ??crit :
Firstly, we dont need the 'offset' anymore because cpu_clock()
maintains offsets itself.
Yes, but a lower quality one. __update_rq_clock tries to compensate
* Guillaume Chazarain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmrpf. sched_clock() is used for the time stamp of the printks. We
need to find some better solution other than killing off the tsc
access completely.
Something like http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/3/16/291 that would need
some refresh?
12 matches
Mail list logo