Re: No 100 HZ timer !

Mark Salisbury
2001-04-10T12:34:52Z

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. **
**------------------------------------------------*/