linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org archive mirror
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
To: Jon Hunter <jon-hunter@ti.com>
Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@elte.hu>, Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
	"linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep for more than 2.15 seconds
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:05:15 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <1240358715.6080.42.camel@localhost> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <49EE54B4.9020700@ti.com>

On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 18:20 -0500, Jon Hunter wrote:
> john stultz wrote:
> > The concern is many clocksources wrap after a handful of seconds. The
> > acpi_pm is the best example (its only 24 bits wide). 
> > 
> > I brought this issue up earlier, and provided some example code that
> > could be used to limit the idle time appropriately for the current
> > clocksource here:
> > 
> > http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0901.3/02693.html
> > 
> > Jon: Did you see that mail, or is there a reason you didn't adapt this
> > code into your patch? 
> 
> Hi John, yes I did read this email and thanks for bringing this up.
> 
> As I looked at this more I noticed that for 64-bit machines that the 
> max_delta_ns would be a 64-bit integer already and so this change would 
> only have an impact for 32-bit machines. I understand that there are 
> more 32-bit machines that 64-bit. However, I was trying to understand 
> how the wrapping of clocksources, such as the one you mention above, is 
> handled today for 64-bit machines that could theoretically sleep for 
> longer periods.

One other minor comment nit, if we're really meaning that max_delta_ns
is a 64bit value, should we not just be using s64 and be explicit
instead of converting longs to long longs?

thanks
-john



  parent reply	other threads:[~2009-04-22  0:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2009-04-20 21:16 [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep for more than 2.15 seconds Jon Hunter
2009-04-21  6:35 ` Ingo Molnar
2009-04-21 20:32   ` john stultz
2009-04-21 23:20     ` Jon Hunter
2009-04-22  0:02       ` john stultz
2009-05-07 14:52         ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-08  0:54           ` [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep formore " john stultz
2009-05-08 16:05             ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-09  0:51               ` [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep formorethan " john stultz
2009-05-12 23:35                 ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-12 23:58                   ` [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep formorethan2.15 seconds john stultz
2009-05-13 15:14                     ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-13 16:41                       ` John Stultz
2009-05-13 17:54                         ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-13 19:21                           ` John Stultz
2009-05-15 16:35                             ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-15 18:55                               ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-16  1:29                                 ` John Stultz
2009-05-16  1:18                               ` John Stultz
2009-05-22 18:21                                 ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-22 19:23                                   ` john stultz
2009-05-22 19:54                                     ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-05-26 15:12                                       ` Jon Hunter
2009-05-26 20:26                                         ` john stultz
2009-05-22 19:59                                   ` Thomas Gleixner
2009-04-22  0:05       ` john stultz [this message]
2009-04-22  3:07         ` [RFC][PATCH] Dynamic Tick: Allow 32-bit machines to sleep for more than 2.15 seconds Jon Hunter
2009-04-22 15:30           ` Chris Friesen
2009-04-22 17:04             ` Jon Hunter
2009-04-22 18:53               ` Geert Uytterhoeven

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=1240358715.6080.42.camel@localhost \
    --to=johnstul@us.ibm.com \
    --cc=jon-hunter@ti.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=mingo@elte.hu \
    --cc=tglx@linutronix.de \
    /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;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).