Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-25 Thread Horst von Brand
Mark Frazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said: [...] > The output of `find . -type f | xargs grep 'jiffies +'` would suggest > that there are a few latent bugs as jiffies grows to values near the > top of its range. I guess this hasn't turned up as 0x7fff / (100 * > 3600 * 24) = 248.55. There were

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-25 Thread sebastien person
Le Wed, 23 May 2001 16:58:15 +0200 (MET DST) Andrzej Krzysztofowicz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a ecrit : > "sebastien person wrote:" > > Is it bad to do the following call ? > > > > mod_timer(, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); > > Yes, it is bad. Don't use floating point in the kernel if you don't need. So,

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-25 Thread sebastien person
Le Wed, 23 May 2001 16:58:15 +0200 (MET DST) Andrzej Krzysztofowicz [EMAIL PROTECTED] a ecrit : sebastien person wrote: Is it bad to do the following call ? mod_timer(timer, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); Yes, it is bad. Don't use floating point in the kernel if you don't need. So, there is

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-25 Thread Horst von Brand
Mark Frazer [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: [...] The output of `find . -type f | xargs grep 'jiffies +'` would suggest that there are a few latent bugs as jiffies grows to values near the top of its range. I guess this hasn't turned up as 0x7fff / (100 * 3600 * 24) = 248.55. There were

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-23 Thread Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
"sebastien person wrote:" > Is it bad to do the following call ? > > mod_timer(, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); Yes, it is bad. Don't use floating point in the kernel if you don't need. > that might fire the timer 1/10 second later. HZ/10 is much better ... --

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-23 Thread Andi Kleen
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:28:01PM +0200, sebastien person wrote: > Is it bad to do the following call ? > > mod_timer(, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); Yes very bad. gcc will generate a floating point add for that, corrupting the user process' floating point context. -Andi - To unsubscribe from

[timer] max timeout

2001-05-23 Thread sebastien person
Hi, is there a max timeout to respect when I use mod_timer ? or add_timer ? Is it bad to do the following call ? mod_timer(, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); that might fire the timer 1/10 second later. Thanks. sebastien person - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe

[timer] max timeout

2001-05-23 Thread sebastien person
Hi, is there a max timeout to respect when I use mod_timer ? or add_timer ? Is it bad to do the following call ? mod_timer(timer, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); that might fire the timer 1/10 second later. Thanks. sebastien person - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-23 Thread Andi Kleen
On Wed, May 23, 2001 at 04:28:01PM +0200, sebastien person wrote: Is it bad to do the following call ? mod_timer(timer, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); Yes very bad. gcc will generate a floating point add for that, corrupting the user process' floating point context. -Andi - To unsubscribe from

Re: [timer] max timeout

2001-05-23 Thread Andrzej Krzysztofowicz
sebastien person wrote: Is it bad to do the following call ? mod_timer(timer, jiffies+(0.1*HZ)); Yes, it is bad. Don't use floating point in the kernel if you don't need. that might fire the timer 1/10 second later. HZ/10 is much better ... --