Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- From: Andreas Mohr <andi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 18:41:51 +0100
Hi,
On Fri, Mar 24, 2006 at 09:22:51AM -0800, Ray Lee wrote:
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.
Doh. That's what happens if you get too excited about some new trick...
Back to the drawing board, methinks.
Andreas Mohr
--
No programming skills!? Why not help translate many Linux applications!
https://launchpad.ubuntu.com/rosetta
-
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/
- References:
- delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- From: Andreas Mohr
- Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- From: Ray Lee
- delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- Prev by Date: Re: delay_tsc(): inefficient delay loop (2.6.16-mm1)
- Next by Date: Re: [patch 06/13] powerpc: cell interrupt controller updates
- Previous by thread: Re: 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
|
