Re: No 100 HZ timer !

[Mark Salisbury <mbs@mc.com>]

On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, David Schleef wrote:
> i.e., the TSC, you have to use 8254 timer 0 as both the timebase
> and the interval counter -- you end up slowly losing time because
> of the race condition between reading the timer and writing a
> new interval.  

actually, I have an algorithm to fix that.  (had to implement this on a system
with a single 32 bit decrementer (an ADI21060 SHARC, YUK!))  the algorithm
simulates a free spinning 64 bit incrementer given  a 32 bit interrupting
decrementer under exclusive control of the timekeeping code.  it also takes
into account the read/calculate/write interval.


  
> It would be nice to see any redesign in this area make it more
> modular.  I have hardware that would make it possible to slave
> the Linux system clock directly off a high-accuracy timebase,
> which would be super-useful for some applications.  I've been
> doing some of this already, both as a kernel patch and as part
> of RTAI; search for 'timekeeper' in the LKML archives if interested.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dave...
-- 
/*------------------------------------------------**
**   Mark Salisbury | Mercury Computer Systems    **
**   mbs@mc.com     | System OS - Kernel Team     **
**------------------------------------------------**
**  I will be riding in the Multiple Sclerosis    **
**  Great Mass Getaway, a 150 mile bike ride from **
**  Boston to Provincetown.  Last year I raised   **
**  over $1200.  This year I would like to beat   **
**  that.  If you would like to contribute,       **
**  please contact me.                            **
**------------------------------------------------*/