Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- From: "Ray Lee" <madrabbit@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 09:22:51 -0800
On 3/24/06, Andreas Mohr <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
+ loops += bclock;[...]
- } while ((now-bclock) < loops);
+ } while (now < loops);
Erm, aren't you introducing an overflow problem here?
if loops is 2^32-1, bclock is 1, the old version would execute the
proper number of times, the new one will blow out in one tick.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- From: Andreas Mohr
- Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- References:
- delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- From: Andreas Mohr
- delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- Prev by Date: [RFC] Virtualization patches for IPC/UTS. 2nd step
- Next by Date: [RFC][PATCH 1/2] Virtualization of UTS
- Previous by thread: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- Next by thread: Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
