From: "David S. Miller" <davem@redhat.com>
To: johnstul@us.ibm.com
Cc: anton.wilson@camotion.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
george@mvista.com
Subject: Re: do_gettimeofday vs. rdtsc in the scheduler
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 13:56:02 -0700 (PDT) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20020917.135602.19253755.davem@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1032296233.22815.192.camel@cog>
From: john stultz <johnstul@us.ibm.com>
Date: 17 Sep 2002 13:57:13 -0700
On Tue, 2002-09-17 at 13:39, David S. Miller wrote:
> It would have been really nice if x86 had specified a "system tick"
> register that incremented based upon the system bus cycles and thus
> were immune the processor rates.
Some systems do, if I'm understanding you properly. Summit based boxes
have an on-chipset performance counter that runs at 100Mhz. My
cyclone-timer patch uses this as a gettimeofday/__delay time source in
the 2.4 kernel. Additionally George Anzinger has patches that allow the
ACPI PM timer to be used as well. Intel's HPET should also provide
another time source.
If any of these need to go beyond the cpu to get the tick value,
they are misimplemented.
The cpu gets the system bus tick input at it's bus pins, therefore
it can implement the system tick register locally obviating the need
to go to a south bridge or memory controller or whatever else external
to the cpu to get at the value.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-09-17 21:00 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <200209172020.g8HKKPF13227@eng2.beaverton.ibm.com>
2002-09-17 20:29 ` Fwd: do_gettimeofday vs. rdtsc in the scheduler john stultz
2002-09-17 20:39 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 20:57 ` john stultz
2002-09-17 20:56 ` David S. Miller [this message]
[not found] <200209172020.g8HKKPF13227@eng2.beaverton.ibm.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <1032294559.22815.180.camel@cog.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
[not found] ` <20020917.133933.69057655.davem@redhat.com.suse.lists.linux.kernel>
2002-09-17 21:00 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-17 20:54 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 21:28 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-17 21:18 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 22:02 ` James Cleverdon
2002-09-17 22:44 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-17 22:38 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 22:55 ` James Cleverdon
2002-09-17 23:12 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 23:32 ` john stultz
2002-09-17 23:32 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 23:52 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-17 23:46 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-17 23:58 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-17 23:51 ` David S. Miller
2002-09-18 0:05 ` Andi Kleen
2002-09-18 1:04 ` James Cleverdon
2002-09-19 18:02 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-20 11:04 ` Maciej W. Rozycki
2002-09-19 11:20 ` Mikael Pettersson
2002-09-19 13:27 ` Alan Cox
2002-09-19 13:39 ` Mikael Pettersson
2002-09-20 15:26 ` John Levon
2002-09-18 6:40 ` Vojtech Pavlik
2002-09-19 18:04 ` Andrea Arcangeli
2002-09-09 22:21 anton wilson
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=20020917.135602.19253755.davem@redhat.com \
--to=davem@redhat.com \
--cc=anton.wilson@camotion.com \
--cc=george@mvista.com \
--cc=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