From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: lkml <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: [RFC][PATCH] linux-2.5.46_timer-tsc-cleanups_A0.patch
Date: 04 Nov 2002 16:03:33 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1036454614.6099.16.camel@cog> (raw)
All,
Here's a small patch to cleanup timer_tsc.c. It removes an unused
variable and makes fast_gettimeoffset_quotient static.
Would someone please double check my smpboot.c change, as I'm replacing
fast_gettimeoffset_quotient w/ cpu_khz. I believe my change is doing the
right thing, but would like a second opinion.
thanks
-john
diff -Nru a/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c b/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c Mon Nov 4 15:42:17 2002
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c Mon Nov 4 15:42:17 2002
@@ -181,8 +181,6 @@
#define NR_LOOPS 5
-extern unsigned long fast_gettimeoffset_quotient;
-
/*
* accurate 64-bit/32-bit division, expanded to 32-bit divisions and 64-bit
* multiplication. Not terribly optimized but we need it at boot time only
@@ -222,7 +220,8 @@
printk("checking TSC synchronization across %u CPUs: ", num_booting_cpus());
- one_usec = ((1<<30)/fast_gettimeoffset_quotient)*(1<<2);
+ /* convert from kcyc/sec to cyc/usec */
+ one_usec = cpu_khz / 1000;
atomic_set(&tsc_start_flag, 1);
wmb();
diff -Nru a/arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c b/arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c
--- a/arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c Mon Nov 4 15:42:17 2002
+++ b/arch/i386/kernel/timers/timer_tsc.c Mon Nov 4 15:42:17 2002
@@ -15,7 +15,6 @@
extern int x86_udelay_tsc;
extern spinlock_t i8253_lock;
-static int use_tsc;
/* Number of usecs that the last interrupt was delayed */
static int delay_at_last_interrupt;
@@ -26,7 +25,7 @@
* Equal to 2^32 * (1 / (clocks per usec) ).
* Initialized in time_init.
*/
-unsigned long fast_gettimeoffset_quotient;
+static unsigned long fast_gettimeoffset_quotient;
static unsigned long get_offset_tsc(void)
{
@@ -244,7 +243,6 @@
unsigned long tsc_quotient = calibrate_tsc();
if (tsc_quotient) {
fast_gettimeoffset_quotient = tsc_quotient;
- use_tsc = 1;
/*
* We could be more selective here I suspect
* and just enable this for the next intel chips ?
reply other threads:[~2002-11-04 23:58 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: [no followups] expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1036454614.6099.16.camel@cog \
--to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox