From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list linux-mips); Mon, 15 May 2006 23:13:15 +0200 (CEST) Received: from rtsoft2.corbina.net ([85.21.88.2]:15793 "HELO mail.dev.rtsoft.ru") by ftp.linux-mips.org with SMTP id S8133749AbWEOVNH (ORCPT ); Mon, 15 May 2006 23:13:07 +0200 Received: (qmail 10501 invoked from network); 16 May 2006 01:19:27 -0000 Received: from wasted.dev.rtsoft.ru (HELO ?192.168.1.248?) (192.168.1.248) by mail.dev.rtsoft.ru with SMTP; 16 May 2006 01:19:27 -0000 Message-ID: <4468EE9B.4000009@ru.mvista.com> Date: Tue, 16 May 2006 01:11:55 +0400 From: Sergei Shtylyov Organization: MontaVista Software Inc. User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; rv:1.7.2) Gecko/20040803 X-Accept-Language: ru, en-us, en-gb MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Clem Taylor CC: Linux-MIPS Subject: Re: CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME and initial value for jiffies? References: In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-Path: X-Envelope-To: <"|/home/ecartis/ecartis -s linux-mips"> (uid 0) X-Orcpt: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org Original-Recipient: rfc822;linux-mips@linux-mips.org X-archive-position: 11441 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org Errors-to: linux-mips-bounce@linux-mips.org X-original-sender: sshtylyov@ru.mvista.com Precedence: bulk X-list: linux-mips Hello. Clem Taylor wrote: > I just switched to 2.6.16.16 from 2.6.14 on a Au1550. I enabled > CONFIG_PRINTK_TIME, and for some reason jiffies doesn't start out near > zero like it does on x86. The first printk() always seems to have a > time of 4284667.296000. > jiffies_64 and wall_jiffies gets initialized to INITIAL_JIFFIES, but > I'm not sure where jiffies is initialized. INITIAL_JIFFIES is -300*HZ > (with some weird casting) > The first line on the 2.6.16.16 Au1550 box is: > [4294667.296000] Linux version 2.6.16.16 (ctaylor@gort) (gcc version > 4.1.0) #4 Mon May 15 13:06:37 EDT 2006 Well, this number looks a lot like -300 secs printed as unsigned -- given the fact that jiffies are unsigned, there's no surprise... My first guess is that TSC code used on x86 corrected jiffies_64 before they got used by sched_clock(). Probably a bogus guess because TSC should have been used by sched_clock() itsefl then... MBR, Sergei